Learning Tools

I was first introduced to the idea of static vs. dynamic by a young chess player. He had been the Armenian Junior Champion before coming to the United States when he was twenty. He was giving me chess lessons and was attempting to explain the difference between strategy and tactics. Tactics are the forced moves that occur when it is pretty clear that when I do this, then my opponent is going to do that, and so on. But, strategy is much more subtle than that; it requires an understanding of time, space, and material. In static positions, players can each continue to move according to their own strategic plans, but in dynamic positions, tactics hold sway and choices grow limited as the players interact according to the requirements of the position. Consequences grow clear as the dynamic tactics reach their conclusion, and it is once again time to assess the overall strategic plan that each player is working toward. Static situations build until a burst of dynamic activity occurs, and then the situation is once again static, ready for the tensions to build.

When I think of dynamic activities in an online context, I think of tools such as instant messaging and video chats that require immediate responses from the participants. Unlike email and discussion boards that can be accessed when I am ready to do so. I can look at an email and think to myself, “I think this is one that is going to require me to do something; I think I will come back to this one.”

This places tools like GoogleDocs in an interesting static vs. dynamic role; GoogleDocs makes for a great dynamic collaborative tool as each person altering a document can see the shifts in the text and can make additional changes in a free flowing, dynamic way, but it is also a tool that can seem very static if participants move slowly to contribute to a communal product.

Blogs and wikis require me as a reader to access a site voluntarily, and again, like email and discussion boards, I can always come back to them whenever it is more convenient to do so. While these tools open the door for greater communication, they are not nearly as dynamic for communication and collaboration as Webinars, video and instant messaging.

What makes for a successful online class?

Durrington, Berryhill, and Swafford examine the qualities that make for a successful online class, suggesting that “Students demonstrate more positive attitudes and higher levels of performance when online classes are highly interactive (Durrington, Berryhill, & Swafford, 2006, p.1). And, they state that “distance learning can be as effective as traditional instruction when the technologies are appropriate for the instructional tasks, instructors provide timely feedback to students, and levels of student interactivity are high” (Durrington, Berryhill, & Swafford, 2006, p.1). In order for the learning environment to achieve high levels of interactivity, “the learning environment must be supportive, open, and respectful” (Durrington, Berryhill, & Swafford, 2006, p.1). To promote participation in asynchronous discussions, “guidelines for minimum contributions should be established” (Durrington, Berryhill, & Swafford, 2006, p.2). The authors also suggest a problem-based learning approach, “in which small groups are presented with a scenario based on real world problems, and each group develops informed solutions to the problem” (Durrington, Berryhill, & Swafford, 2006, p.2).

Siemens suggests a “curatorial” approach for instructors in an online environment, in which the exhibits put on display the content of the course, leading to active networked conversations and opportunity for students to dissect and experience material in different ways. The curator is not the sage on the stage or the guide on the side; the curator is an expert leading students to understanding. The curator engages in active dialogue with the students to create a rich interplay of ideas between the instructor and the student. The online classroom for Siemens acts as a centralized location for the course content, but the act of learning is decentralized across the larger network of available content.

Siemens’ concept of Curatorial Teaching seems designed for an academic environment in which the instructor facilitating the course is also the same instructor who designed the course. In my experience with proprietary higher education, the instructor facilitating the course is not the same subject matter expert who designs the exhibits and assignments in the course. Although, I do agree with Seimens’ description of the active role that must be played by the instructor facilitating the course. The instructor and instructional designers of online courses should take into consideration the suggestions of Siemens and Durrington, Berryhill, and Swafford; an online course needs to be interactive; the online instructor needs to provide regular feedback to the student; the assignments need to relate to real world situations that provide context for student learning and growing experience.

The online course design should also consider how to use common tools in the instructional process. For example, enabling students to use communication tools like WindowsLive, Elluminate, and Skype create opportunities for more effective collaborative student interactions. Email, instant messaging, and text messaging increase lines of communication between students and instructors. GoogleDocs is a wonderful tool for enabling students to compose and edit a collaborative student project. Blogs and wikis allow students to express themselves in an environment created and managed by the student.

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

Siemens, G. (2007). Curatorial learning. [Podcast]. Learn Online.Retrieved October 25, 2009, from http://learnonline.wordpress.com/2007/09/20/10-minute-lecture-george-siemens-curatorial-teaching/

EDUC 8842 Video Presentation

Here is my first ever video presentation. It is a good thing that I attended the NECC conference last year, or I would have had even more challenges putting this thing together. Honestly, I am not certain that I would have had any idea how to begin.

Assessing Collaborative Learning

How should participation in collaborative learning community be assessed? How do varying levels of skill and knowledge students bring to a course affect the instructor’s “Fair and equitable assessment of learning”?

If a student does not want to network or collaborate in a learning community for an online course, what should the other members of the learning community do? What role should the instructor play? What impact would this have on his or her assessment plan?

According to Palloff and Pratt (2007), “one of the keys to good assessment of collaborative work online is that it be clear, easy to understand, and easy to carry out” (pp.50). Rubrics should be set up so that students have no difficulty assessing themselves and their peers. Successful collaborative assessment qualities include “learner-centered, teacher-directed, mutually beneficial, formative, context-specific, ongoing, and firmly rooted in good practice” (pp.41).

Participation in a collaborative learning community should be assessed on the individual efforts of each member, that while students are working as a team toward a common goal, each person is being graded upon his or her individual efforts, and team feedback regarding member participation should be included. In many of the courses at the online school where I am an administrator, teamwork assignments are set up in each course and represent a significant portion of the student grade. The instructor is asked to facilitate the process by answering student questions about the assignment and the process. If members of the team choose not to participate, the active members of the team are not penalized, and in many cases, the assignment requirements are modified so that one person is not completing the entire project on his or her own. Instead, that student will complete the portion of the assignment that they would have contributed if all members were participating successfully to the process. Students not participating are assessed according to the rubric, and awarded points accordingly.

One might say that if each person is completing individual assignment, then there is not much of a collaborative community. However, I would contend that if each person is aware that his or her contributions are being assessed individually, it takes the pressure off of the team as a whole, and, each person becomes a willing contributor to the overall project. A solid, clear rubric regarding project requirements and individual participation make for pretty successful team experiences.

The instructor acts as the mediator of group dynamics, attempting to bring the team together so that all members participate fully and are satisfied with the overall efforts of the team. By encouraging individuals to contribute to the process and make collective decisions about how each member will contribute, team members are more willing to engage in an actively collaborative process. Also, when students engage in contracts with each other regarding individual responsibilities, then students can gain confidence in the process, and again are more willing to contribute to the collaborative process. The instructor role in team management is essential; in many cases, the instructor is an additional team member with a vital role of ensuring the success of the team as a whole.

Reference:

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