Latest Entries »

Friday June 20, 2014

The last day of preparation before we leave. Today we worked on lesson plan ideas. I started working with Gloria Wu on a comparison genocide unit for world history/ world issues. We decided to work on a google site and start collecting sources and ideas. Our new website address is https://sites.google.com/site/walkingwitnessgenocideproject/ If you would like to check it out. I shared some German Notgeld with everyone (inflation money from the twenties) and Alicia Booker shared her extensive holocaust book collection. I finally got a falafel sandwich from South Side 6, even though I got soaked going to get it. We were filmed for a documentary (individual interviews). After lunch, we discussed final preparations for the trip and shared our ideas for lesson plans. I am heading home to change now because this evening we will be witnessing new Cantor being installed at the Temple Shomer Emunim during Shabbat service.

Advertisements

Learning a new camera….microphone and Premiere

SurvivorPic

Two Holocaust Survivors

Welcome to my blog. I am going to use this site to document my experiences in the Walking Witness Project.

Here is the website for the project: http://www.bearingwitnesstoledo.com/index.html

This is day five of the six day pre travel experience. On the first day, we viewed the Bearing Witness: The Voices of Our Survivors documentary On Monday, we learned how to frame pictures, use the Canon Rebel T3i camera, and use video during the morning. One of the best things I learned was using the grid and the rule of thirds.  After lunch, we traveled to the B’nai Israel Synagogue.  At the synagogue, we were introduced to Jewish services and got to meet and talk with Cantor Ivor Lichterman. The Cantor is an a cappella singer that leads the service. He shared the Byzantine sheet music and explained how to read and perform it. His father was the last Cantor in Warsaw before the war.

byzantineexample

We also met Joel Marcovitch the Jewish Federation of Greater Toledo CEO who shared current issues in the Jewish community. David Weinberg lectured us on the history of anti semitism.

On Tuesday, David Weinberg presented a brief history of the holocaust.  Then we met our guide for Greece, Marcia Haddad Ikonomopoulos. She introduced us to the holocaust in Greece. I was not familiar with Greece’s experience in the holocaust which happened late in the war after the Italians were defeated.

Holy Trinity

In the afternoon, we traveled to the Holy Trinity Greek Orthodox Cathedral in Toledo, Ohio. Rev. Hadgigeorge discussed differences in the different ways to practice Judaism and showed us the beautiful cathedral. Then we went to the archive room in the Toledo Public library and learned about research from Donna Christian. We finished the day with a Greek meal downtown at Mano’s.

rail car

On Wednesday, we visited the Holocaust Memorial in Farmington Hills Michigan. Here, we met and talked with two holocaust survivors. We also toured the museum which includes an actual German railcar. We met with Guy Stern and Feiga Weiss learning how to research survivors and thoughts on educating students about the holocaust. Some of the interesting things at this museum was the seedling from the tree Anne Frank looked at in her book and money used in the ghetto.

On Thursday, we spent the morning talking about lesson planning and reflecting on what we have learned so far. After lunch, we learned about Theatre for Social Change from Aimee Reid. This presentation opened up some new lesson plan ideas for my students where they will create tableau scenes.

Aimee

Aimee Reid

We finished the day discussing lesson plan ideas and cross curricular communication.

 

Module 6 Comments

I visited: http://jamiwashington.blogspot.com

And posted:

Jamie,
I am curious about your research of the Yang and Cornelious (2005) article. You mentioned in your review of lit that they provided a list of problems with online learning. Did they include “lack of immediate feedback” in the list? I am working on KAM II and could use another source for this problem Also, do you think any of the problems they listed have been rectified with the advent of collaborative technologies in the last six years?
Nice job on your video,
Dave Harms

I visited: http://erg4education.spaces.live.com/

I was unable to post since I do not have a Windows Live ID: But would have posted:

Elaine,

Nice job on your video. I remember distinctly abandoning citation software in my second Master’s class when my professor gave me a B because of mistakes it had made. I think you made a valid point that instruction in proper citations needs to be addressed at an earlier stage. Students need to know how to check the citations to figure out if they are correct.

Nice job!

Dave Harms

I visited :http://incitefultechnology.blogspot.com/2010/11/video-post-intro-jono-bacon.html?showComment=1290394679894_AIe9_BEUjA1-P5OLqYXOSCSrjGbx6490Eon6215c74grc5XSC28i-WDErNApFmNvXw4dIGFDGjWZSTaYBAomKRWOmKXyT197Q3rsMe4l6alJ5feIpfND8g2gtFxbZ3UluefDUlIqeFtMRBb5LOKXUhYkftdsinxh8oz4j-nqRb9bd4Et4xc660HC45NVhRr6G5vMWhEK5bYch5EYqak88ywVVF0vzrVT65zcbV9ctCW0Kq3FK703OAOUcoJXqRx0w3VFxj6LYjbm2ZybGqJUMP41SK9gVe90M3bGZUbTQpOKT1iqVTlP6iwZEsYgoeuhrzM4dBCfHsEL8sfz79OnHG-mDlzARxy6iXrihmqfcH4hRjJvR0JkRLCFZo5k3TA7WJH8hxDKGvnwU5hDATUFT7YwIGwAVZ4eF6k4I7U8yr5Le7y2e9Qb0FG1h8QnNwgah_VxMVuj8Kg537MlhrKE4M-jgLnuS-BEOkbMp0JL0ocAsUMnI1RD1pI3Q5Xu9oDRsnrHymqQovRKIXknjobfGVGhzu7499vugRxUDMzHrROJdKep6YDpKVGfhTyI8rgSKtcQNBK8-Rd-GpCZ0WD0MfcsiGjl7yAmcjloPt8rS0Iqdng-_00_eUev0xv2CmjOFZP9ZGm_53De0-hEYWvQN3LURKDDmw9obgUVCjNsEQCDNMrZOwwwsV60jOtBTZm0BKuVoTcA7Nb8iLMphd8mLIuUozKDipI6vatKISququ-CR5cWPwgMK3Ix7ro58-LxcLLV2bskxryg4vBxYQ39eBzZotpdmR6EbTX-y4v2wcuy8OKmXYQ-at0#c4383969723519046740

And posted:

Tom,
I thought the song added a lot to your video. Did you have to get permission to use it? I have known about Linux for years but have yet to experiment with it. One of my professors here at Walden only ran Linux in Brazil and we had to turn all assignments in as .pdfs. I enjoyed seeing the differences and added options iMovie has over MovieMaker. If I were doing movies on a regular basis, I would invest in a mac.

Nice job!
Dave Harms

I visited: http://aimee-educ7102.blogspot.com/

And posted:

Aimee,

I enjoyed watching your video because it showed how to do a video without using stills and words such as I did. I thought your interviews were well done. Did you find any other suggestions for motivating adult learners besides continuous feedback? I agree with the finding that “lack of instant feedback” is a problem for online learners and am working with this premise in KAK II.
Thanks!

Dave Harms

November 21, 2010 7:13 PM

I visited: http://bobstreff.blogspot.com/

And posted:

Bob,
I spent all my time wishing I had a mac with iMovie or Final Cut, I never investigated using an Abobe product. I have CS5 from work, but it does not come with Premiere Pro. I liked the way you could add two videos playing at the same time. If I would have more time, I would have liked to experiment with a better program than MovieMaker.
Nice Job,
Dave Harms

I went to: http://mshorton.wordpress.com/

And Posted:

Janelle,
I was working with Second Life for my original Master’s thesis until I ran into the problem of the 18 year old split between Teenworld and the real SecondLife. Without spending money to buy an island, I was not able to work in the teen world since I was over 18. I eventually had to scrap the idea. I am very excited to see your video and am curious if the Case Western representative created an island for your class to work on. Obviously, you had purchased some land to build your garden. How much was the budget to accommodate this? Working with Second Life from home is unstable and it frequently crashes on my home computer….did you experience any problems? Did the computer tech people have to update your computers every time Linden Labs updated the software?
Sorry for the questions…but I am very interested in your work.
Thank you for sharing!
Dave Harms
By the way…I made my movie with MovieMaker…but agree it is a terrible program. It is all we have for kids to use at school…so I have taken some courses in how to use it. There are some tricks to it….but it is still a very unstable program…I am also interested in the alternative program you found.

Video

 

Introduce Topic – Collaborative Online Learning for High School Shot video of myself introducing the topic Hello and welcome to the National Secondary Education Technology Conference. My name is David Harms and it is my pleasure to introduce today’s featured speaker, Dr. Keith Pratt.Today, Dr. Pratt is going to talk about Collaborative Online Learning in Secondary Education.
Introduce Dr. Pratt Key Points of his background on bulleted list with pictures

 

Pratt spent 22 years in the Air Force as a computer systems engineer. Now he is a highly sought after distance learning consultant (Crossroads Consulting Group, 2006b).

 

  Show pictures of his books while reading credentials

 

Dr. Pratt wrote Building Learning Communities in Cyberspace, The Virtual Student, Building Online Learning Communities, and Collaborating Online which discusses Piaget and constructivism (Crossroads Consulting Group, 2006a).
  Still picture of Dr. Pratt

 

Crossroads Consulting Group (2006b).
Pedagogy supporting collaboration Picture of Piaget http://webspace.ship.edu/cgboer/genpsypiaget.html
Definition of constructivism

 

Piaget (1969) as quoted in Palloff and Pratt (2005) defined constructivism as the theory that believes humans learn from their experiences which they use to construct meaning (p. 6).
Quote from Pratt on link between collaboration and constructivism – Ken Burns’ effect on book quote comes from Palloff and Pratt (2005) explained that collaboration is a method of instruction that helps students achieve constructivist learning (p. 6).

 

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

Huett, Moller, Foshay, and Coleman (2008) reported enrollment in high school online courses has increased (p. 63). Although there are many online high school courses, most of the literature focuses on online posts secondary collaboration (p. 65).
Best Collaborative Practices Bulleted list from Pratt’s books Palloff and Pratt (2005) recommended the following collaborative activities, “role playing (p. 57)”, “simulations (p. 60)”, “case studies (p. 63)”, “questioning techniques for collaborative discussions (p. 69)”, “dyads (p. 73)”, “small-group projects (p. 77)”, “jigsaw activities (p. 79)”, “blogs (p. 81)”, “virtual teams (p. 83)”, “debates (p. 85)”, “fishbowls (p. 87)”, “learning cycles (89)”, and “webquests (p. 93)”.
Current Literature Discussion Male v female groups (Video of a boy and a girl)

In his presentation, Pratt will be addressing current research in collaborative online learning for secondary education.

Ding (2009) discovered that mixed sex groups completed online work best, but reported that female participation was overshadowed by the males (p. 517).

  New software aids – Shared Space (SS) (Study from Netherlands – map showing location)

Janssen, Erkins, and Kanselaar (2007) tested the effect a new visual tool called shared space had on collaborative learning (p. 1105) and found that shared space only increased group performance in the early stages of online collaboration (p. 1122).
  Impact of familiarity on online collaboration (Video of two people shaking hands to show familiarity)

Jahnke (2010) found that student relationships with each other and their instructor were identified as important in online learning (pp. 29-30), and transferred into stronger face to face relationships upon course completion (p. 34).
  Off task behavior and solutions (Video of someone on Facebook or playing video game)

Marttunen and Laurinen (2009) discovered that students were on task 96.3% in face to face debates, but only 68.9% in online debates (p. 966).
  Map http://www.malaysiatravel.infoguidance.net/malaysia1500001.jpg
  Calendar Picture http://meds.queensu.ca/assets/calendar.jpg
  Self regulated strategies (study from Malaysia – map showing where it is) Vighnarajah, Wong, and Bakar (2009), Malaysian researchers, investigated student perceptions of self regulation in online courses (p. 98) and concluded that self regulating strategies are essential to online learning success (p. 103).
Problems and Solutions Lack of instant feedback (video of someone looking at time on the phone impatiently) Barbour (2008) discovered that the lack of immediate feedback was a common problem for many online students (p. 359).
  Google Picture http://www.bing.com/images/search?q=moodle+picture&go=&form=QBIR&qs=n&sk=#focal=17da065809e3b98aa8d8b20c0c27d25e&furl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.todmordenprimary.org.uk%2Fhomedir%2Fimages%2Fmoodle-desktop.jpg
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

 

Pratt (2010) will also be discussing the future of online learning including new hardware such as iPads, smartphones, and new presentation technology.

Pratt (2010) hypothesized that educational use in applications such as Second life will increase in the future. He believed games and simulations will drive education away from standardized tests and quizzes.

Pratt (2010) believed that there will be a shift in education to a personalized approach that will be self paced and designed around student needs. He felt learning management systems such as MOODLE, Angel, and Blackboard will be replaced with tools such as GoogleApps.

Pratt (2010) also identified a shift in the focus of education from content to connection, conversations, and networking.

Downes (2009) as cited in Pratt (2010) identified the following four characteristics in online education; “students follow their own objectives”, “unstructured learning and discussions”, “no leader”, and “no boundaries”.

I hope you’ve enjoyed this overview of collaborative online learning for secondary students. Please join me in welcoming Dr. Pratt as he addresses the questions, “How can [online educators] prepare for the future?” and “How can we prepare our students for their future (Pratt, 2010)”.

 

 

Annotated Bibliography

Barbour, M. (2008, Winter). Secondary students’ perceptions of web-based learning. Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 9(4), 357-371. Retrieved June 4, 2009, from Education Research Complete database.

 

Barbour (2008) investigated secondary student’s perception of their online learning environments experiences (p. 357). He conducted a literature review and discovered that post-secondary online students enjoy both flexibility and collaborating with other students (p. 358). He identified that a major weakness of online education was the lack of immediate feedback from both the instructor and other students (p. 359). Barbour replicated a previous post-secondary quantitative study on 38, n=38,  secondary students enrolled in small rural Canadian high schools and discovered that students had a positive perception of their online learning experience (pp. 359-361).  Barbour concluded that the similar results between this secondary study, and the previous results in post-secondary studies needed to be further tested so that the results could be applied to future secondary online course design (p. 365).

Barbour’s (2008) sample size, n=38, was limited to 38 Canadian students who lived in English districts making generalizations to a larger population difficult. A larger sample size is recommended to increase transferability of this study to other student populations. The study was limited to small rural districts and results may not apply to other student populations. This study needs to be replicated with a proper random sample. Barbour’s study adds to the literature on online secondary education, which is often overshadowed by online post-secondary education.

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

Barbour, M. (2008, Winter). Secondary students’ perceptions of web-based learning. Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 9(4), 357-371. Retrieved June 4, 2009, from Education Research Complete database.

Crossroads Consulting Group (2006a). Our books. Retrieved from: http://xroadservices.com/home/books.html

Crossroads Consulting Group (2006b). About the partners. Retrieved from: http://xroadservices.com/home/partners.html

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

Huett, J., Moller, L., Foshay, W. & Coleman, C. (2008, September/October). The evolution of distance education: Implications for instructional design on the potential of the Web (Part 3: K12). TechTrends, 52(5), 63–67.

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

Palloff, R. M., & Pratt, K. (2007). Building online learning communities: Effective strategies for the virtual classroom. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Palloff, R. M., & Pratt, K. (2005). Collaborating online. Learning together in community. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Palloff, R. M., & Pratt, K. (2003). The virtual student. A profile and guide to working with online learners. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Palloff, R. M., & Pratt, K. (1999). Building learning communities in cyberspace. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

 

Pratt, K. (2010). The future is now! The past, present, and future of online learning. Retrieved from: http://sylvan.live.ecollege.com/ec/crs/default.learn?CourseID=4432198&Survey=1&47=5590091&ClientNodeID=404183&coursenav=1&bhcp=1&BrswrOK=1&PrevRef=http://sylvan.live.ecollege.com/ec/crs/default.learn%3FCourseID%3D4432198%26Survey%3D1%2647%3D5590091%26ClientNodeID%3D404183%26coursenav%3D1&submit1=Continue

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

 

 

 

Module 5 Responses

I went to http://jamiwashington.blogspot.com/

and posted:

Jami,
I agree that wikis can be both static and dynamic depending on how they are used. I have been using wikis since 2006 and have been really impressed with their educational applications.
Nice blog,
Dave Harms

I visited : http://mshorton.wordpress.com/

and posted:

Ms. Horton,
I liked your inclusion of peer to peer file sharing as a static collaboration method. I did not think of this one and feel that this is an excellent example of a static collaboration method.
Nice job!
Dave Harms

I visited: http://incitefultechnology.blogspot.com/2010/11/static-and-dynamic-technology.html#comments

and posted:

Tom,
I am not familiar with the acronym MMORPG….what is this?
Thanks,
Dave Harms

Module 5 Post

Static and Dynamic Technologies
Definition
Moller (2008) presented a continuum for evaluating educational technologies that includes three categories; static, middle, and dynamic (p. 1-2). Static technologies simply transmit information. The middle of the continuum provides limited interactivity between students and the content. Dynamic technologies immerse students in interaction with the content (p. 1). The following discussion utilizes the concept map shown in figure 1.

Content

Dynamic
• Siemens (2008) presented “blogs, wikis, podcasts, and user-generated content (p. 8)” be utilized for content delivery. He called these activities the “participative web (p. 8)”.
• Moller (2008) explained that virtual simulations were an example of a dynamic technology (p. 1).
• Moller (2008) listed gaming as a dynamic technology (p. 1).

Static
• Siemens (2008) suggested using traditional lectures when appropriate to foster student exploration of additional content (p. 16).
• Anderson (2008) presented customizing online content to reflect individual student needs by adjusting the course at it happens (p. 346).
• Anderson (2008) lamented the reliance of many online instructors on “text based lectures (p. 349)” for content delivery (p. 346).
• Anderson (2008) suggested using personal reflections and experiences to motivate online students (p. 347).
• Siemens (2008) suggested utilizing the new curriculum suggested by Harvard that focuses on a modern collaborative model (p. 8).
• Siemens (2008) listed Google Scholar, Scopus, and open access journals as new resources for content (p. 3).

Communication

Dynamic

• Siemens (2008) listed blogs, wikis, social bookmarking, Instant Messaging (IM), Skype, and Ning as modern methods of communication (p. 3).
• Fontana (2010) discussed using Facebook as the central platform for his art class at Bowling Green State University.
• Harms (2010) shared his use of group Skype communications between social studies students and Mayan archeologists.

Static

• Darrington, Barryhill, and Swafford (2006) suggested implementing non-graded discussion areas for questions to help establish a positive online environment (p. 191).
• Anderson (2008) believed establishing “trust and safety (p. 350)” is the first key element in establishing online communication. This is commonly achieved through class introduction postings (p. 350).
• Darrington, Barryhill, and Swafford (2006) stressed the importance of a “clear and detailed syllabus (p. 196)” for communicating expectations (p. 196).
• Siemens (2008) listed modern communication methods as email, Skype, and Instant Messaging (IM) (p. 14).
• Darrington, Barryhill, and Swafford (2006) reported timely responses help create a positive course environment. They also reminded teachers to use proper tone and communicate clearly using proper netiquette when communicating with students (p. 191).

Collaboration

Dynamic

• Darrington, Barryhill, and Swafford (2006) suggested Problem Based Learning (PBL) utilizing small groups to encourage collaboration (p. 192).
• Darrington, Barryhill, and Swafford (2006) introduced student moderated discussions as a strategy to increase student collaboration (p. 191). Anderson (2008) also recommended student moderated discussions but warned that students need to receive instructions on proper moderation techniques (p. 351).
• Moller (2008) included multi-user environments in his list of dynamic technologies (p. 1).
• Rymaszewski et al. (2007) explained Second Life as a, “metaverse (p. 4)” defined as a virtual world where everything is created and designed by the inhabitants (p. 4).

Static (In my chart, I included Middle Technologies because there would not be any collaboration in Static Technologies)

• Siemens (2008) reported that blogging allows students to share their work with their peers (p. 15). Cameron and Anderson (2006) as reported in Anderson (2008) suggested that blogging instigates student reflective writing skills (p. 351).
• Siemens (2008) suggested that teachers should assume the role of network administrator to help create student learning networks (p. 16).
• Darrington, Barryhill, and Swafford (2006) discussed creating a small group discussion area for collaboration (p. 192).
• Moller (2008) listed “wikis, blogs, discussion boards, chats, and other similar approaches (p.1)” as belonging in the middle of the continuum (p. 1).

Static-Dynamic Reflection

I would consider myself to be in the middle of the static-dynamic continuum. Moller (2008) listed the following technologies in the middle of the continuum; “wikis, blogs, discussion boards, chats, and other similar approaches (p. 1)”. I currently utilize all of these technologies in my classes. I did my research for my Master’s Thesis on WIKI implementation and content area writing skills and discovered that student achievement in content-area writing can be facilitated using a wiki (Harms, 2008, p. 36). In secondary education, there are many legal issues that need to be addressed before more dynamic technologies can be introduced. Penta Career Center is governed by Ohio law that requires all computers have filtering systems. This is designed to protect students from being exposed to inappropriate content found on the Internet. Blogs, although an excellent collaborative tool, are blocked by a filtering system. Social bookmarking sites such as Delicious are also blocked as well as any social network including Ning. Skype is blocked as well; however, Harms (2010) shared how conversations done at home can be recorded and shared with students. Google Apps are also blocked because students can save documents online that administrators are not able to access them. In class, I have students create podcasts on various subjects and post them to the class wiki. These laws and policies are put into place because the students are minors which make the school responsible for their protection during school hours.

I am currently designing my first online course at the post-secondary level. Currently the course is very static consisting of text, discussions, Wink recordings, and homework assignments. I have put a lot of thought into changing the design to be more dynamic; however, this course does not lend itself to dynamic. The course teaches students the basics of Microsoft Excel and Access. Students are given real world based assignments and complete them. There are step by step examples in the chapters that prepare students for the homework assignments. Additionally, the Wink recordings show the students step by step where everything is on the screen. This experience has led me to hypothesize that not all courses are meant to be dynamic and that the course design needs to reflect the nature of the content.

If I get hired to design an online education class at the post-secondary level, I would love to explore some of the dynamic technologies. I started researching Second Life in 2007 for my Master’s Thesis, but had to change my topic because of my secondary specialization. In Second Life, I participated in virtual world lectures and discussions. One science teacher was able to lead a chemistry lab virtually. I was also excited about the global connections I had access too. I went to Virtual Mexico and talked with actual Latin American residents. I believe this would be an excellent learning experience for my secondary world issues students. Unfortunately, there are lots of places in Second Life I would not want secondary students to experience. In post secondary, teachers are not responsible for what students do when they are not in class. Fontana (2010) recommended that teachers add a disclaimer in their syllabus that states that students agree to abide by all the rules of any online service provider used in class to protect the teacher from potential lawsuits.

References
Anderson, T. (2008). Teaching in an online learning context. In T. Anderson (Ed.), The theory and practice of online learning (2nd ed., pp. 343–365). Edmonton, AB: Athabasca University Press.

Durrington, V. A., Berryhill, A., & Swafford, J. (2006). Strategies for enhancing student interactivity in an online environment. College Teaching, 54(1), 190−193.

Fontana, A. (2010, November). Using Facebook as a learning management tool. Northwest Ohio Symposium on Science, Mathematics, and Technology Teaching conducted at Penta Career Center, Perrysburg, Ohio.

Harms, D. (2010, November). Incorporating STEM activities into academic classrooms. Northwest Ohio Symposium on Science, Mathematics, and Technology Teaching conducted at Penta Career Center, Perrysburg, Ohio.

Rymaszewski, M., Au, W. J., Wallace, M., Winters, C., Ondrejka, C., Batstone-Cunningham, B., & Second Life residents from around the world (2007). Second Life: The official guide. Wiley Publishing, Inc., Indianapolis, Indiana.

Siemens, G. (2008, January). Learning and knowing in networks: Changing roles for educators and designers. ITForum.

Siemens, G. (2007, September 18). 10 minute lecture – George Siemens – Curatorial teaching [Online Web log post]. Retrieved from: http://learnonline.wordpress.com/2007/09/20/10-minute-lecture-george-siemens-curatorial-teaching/

New Presentation

Module 4 Comments

I visited http://bobstreff.blogspot.com/

and posted:

I also am interested in Adobe Connect Pro. How does this platform compare to MOODLE or Sakai? Is there support available for it? Our high school has been looking at MOODLE, but the tech director is concerned about the lack of support. Is there academic pricing from Adobe for this program. We already have a deal with them for CS5.
Thanks,
Dave Harms

I visited: http://mshorton.wordpress.com/

and posted:

I agree that many of the tools overlap. I am curious how you think computer access fits into this equation. In my 11th an 12th grade classes of 30 students, we have 5 computers. The computers are getting old and the budget crunch in Ohio does not look promising for replacing them. There are some schools in the area looking at using cell phones for access and dropping their no cell phone policies. We have been fighting a string of sexting busts in area schools. Eliminating cell phone policies opens districts to legal liability.
Dave Harms

Finally I visited: http://incitefultechnology.blogspot.com/

and posted:

Tom,
Thanks for posting Zotero: http://www.zotero.org/I was unfamiliar with this tool. This would be a great organizational tool for high school research papers. I am going to share this with the rest of the staff at work. Have you located resources to use with younger students who are unfamiliar with many of the tools you discussed?
Thanks,
Dave Harms

Module 4 Post

Content

  • Siemens (2008) suggested using traditional lectures when appropriate to foster student exploration of additional content (p. 16).
  • Anderson (2008) presented customizing online content to reflect individual student needs by adjusting the course at it happens (p. 346).
  • Anderson (2008) lamented the reliance of many online instructors on “text based lectures (p. 349)” for content delivery (p. 346).
  • Anderson (2008) suggested using personal reflections and experiences to motivate online students (p. 347).
  • Siemens (2008) presented “blogs, wikis, podcasts, and user-generated content (p. 8)” be utilized for content delivery. He called these activities the “participative web (p. 8)”.
  • Siemens (2008) suggested utilizing the new curriculum suggested by Harvard that focuses on a modern collaborative model (p. 8).
  • Siemens (2008) listed Google Scholar, Scopus, and open access journals as new resources for content (p. 3).

Communication

  • Darrington, Barryhill, and Swafford (2006) suggested implementing non-graded discussion areas for questions to help establish a positive online environment (p. 191).
  • Anderson (2008) believed establishing “trust and safety (p. 350)” is the first key element in establishing online communication. This is commonly achieved through class introduction postings (p. 350).
  • Darrington, Barryhill, and Swafford (2006) stressed the importance of a “clear and detailed syllabus (p. 196)” for communicating expectations (p. 196).
  • Siemens (2008) listed modern communication methods as email, Skype, and Instant Messaging (IM) (p. 14).
  • Darrington, Barryhill, and Swafford (2006) reported timely responses help create a positive course environment. They also reminded teachers to use proper tone and communicate clearly using proper netiquette when communicating with students (p. 191).
  • Siemens (2008) listed blogs, wikis, social bookmarking, Instant Messaging (IM), Skype, and Ning as modern methods of communication (p. 3).

Collaboration

  • Siemens (2008) reported that blogging allows students to share their work with their peers (p. 15). Cameron and Anderson (2006) as reported in Anderson (2008) suggested that blogging instigates student reflective writing skills (p. 351).
  • Siemens (2008) suggested that teachers should assume the role of network administrator to help create student learning networks (p. 16).
  • Darrington, Barryhill, and Swafford (2006) introduced student moderated discussions as a strategy to increase student collaboration (p. 191). Anderson (2008) also recommended student moderated discussions but warned that students need to receive instructions on proper moderation techniques (p. 351).
  • Darrington, Barryhill, and Swafford (2006) suggested Problem Based Learning (PBL) utilizing small groups to encourage collaboration (p. 192).
  • Darrington, Barryhill, and Swafford (2006) discussed creating a small group discussion area for collaboration (p. 192).

Common Tools

The common tool in all three areas was discussions. Discussions can be used to facilitate online content, communication, and collaboration. Blogs were also common to content, communication, and collaboration. Although not evident in the literature for this weeks’ assignment, I hypothesize that many of the other tools are common including; wikis, Skype, social bookmarking, Ning, and podcasting.

Reflection Discussing Utilizing Tools in the Classroom

Siemens (2008) suggested that educators need to instruct students using the modern tools they are familiar with (p. 8). The tools that are appropriate for online secondary education include blogs, wikis, social bookmarking, Skype, and Podcasts. Harms (2008) reported that student achievement in content area writing can be facilitated using a wiki (p. 36). In this quantitative experiment, students increased both the number of words and quality of their writing using a wiki as compared to traditional paper pencil assignments (p.36). Using a class wiki, students can post rough drafts of their work, share with others, receive feedback, and edit their final products.

Penta Career Center in Northwest Ohio is governed by Ohio law that requires all computers have filtering systems to protect students from being exposed to inappropriate content found on the Internet. Blogs, although an excellent collaborative tool, are blocked by Penta’s filtering system. Social bookmarking sites such as Delicious are also blocked as well as any social network including Ning. Skype is blocked as well; however conversations done at home can be recorded and shared with students. For example; I have students who are learning about Mayan Indians ask questions on note cards, which I ask through Skype to a Mayan archeologist and record the conversation. This helps the archeologists as well since the call can be done at a time of their choosing. Unfortunately, the students loose the real time collaboration with the expert. Google Apps are also blocked because students can save documents online that administrators can not access. In class, I have students create podcasts on various subjects and post them to the class wiki.

In my college courses, we utilize Sakai. It is much easier to incorporate these tools into the post-secondary environment because the students are legal adults. I am already utilizing the following suggested activities; non-graded discussion (FAQ), introduction posting assignment, detailed syllabus, timely responses, wikis, moderated discussion, Problem Based Learning (PBL), and traditional lectures.  I am also instituting Skype office hours in my online class next semester for students who have questions.

References

Anderson, T. (2008). Teaching in an online learning context. In T. Anderson (Ed.), The theory and practice of online learning (2nd ed., pp. 343–365). Edmonton, AB: Athabasca University Press.

Durrington, V. A., Berryhill, A., & Swafford, J. (2006). Strategies for enhancing student interactivity in an online environment. College Teaching, 54(1), 190−193.

Harms, D. (2008). The effect of wiki implementation on writing skills in content area writing. Unpublished manuscript, Department of Education, Lourdes College, Sylvania, Ohio.

Siemens, G. (2008, January). Learning and knowing in networks: Changing roles for educators and designers. ITForum.

Siemens, G. (2007, September 18). 10 minute lecture – George Siemens – Curatorial teaching [Online Web log post]. Retrieved from: http://learnonline.wordpress.com/2007/09/20/10-minute-lecture-george-siemens-curatorial-teaching/