My video posted on Sunday, but now it says it is no longer available. I re-posted it this morning and am also making it available on screencast.com. Just cut clink on the link to view.

EDUC 8842 Vid Project 2.pptx

References

Chen, H. (1998). Final paper: Synchronous versus asynchronous interaction. Unpublished
manuscript, Arizona State University, Mesa, AZ.

Er, E., Ozden, M.Y., & Arifoglu, A. (2009). Livelms: A blended e-learning environment: A
model proposition for integration of asynchronous and synchronous e-learning. The International Journal of Learning, 16(2), 449-460.

Hrastinski, S. (2007). The potential of synchronous communication to enhance participation in
online discussions. Paper presented at 28th International Conference on Information Systems, Montreal, Canada, Dec. 9-12, 2007.

Haythornthwaite, C. Kazmer, M. (2002). Bringing the internet home: Adult distance learners and
their internet, home, and world works. In The Internet in Everyday Life. Wellman , B. & Haythornthwaite, C. (Eds.). Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.

Hrastinski, S. (2009). A study of asynchronous and synchronous e-learning methods discovered
that each supports different purposes. Educause Quarterly,31(4), 51-55.

Kock, N. (2005). Media richness or media naturalness? The evolution of our biological
communication apparatus and its influences on our behavior toward e-communication tools. IEEE transactions on Professional Communications, 48(2), 117-130.

Midkiff, S.F. & DaSIlva, L.A. Leveraging the web for synchronous versus asynchronous
communications. Unpublished manuscript, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, VA.

Miller, W., Webster, W., & King, J. (1997) A comparison of interaction needs and performance
of distance learners in synchronous and asynchronous classes. Paper presented at the American Vocational Association Convention.



Moller, L. (2008). Designing communities of learners for asynchronous distance learners.
Unpublished manuscript, Instructional Systems Program, The Pennsylvania State University, State College, PA.

Roberts, L.P. & Dennis, A.R. (2005) Paradox of richness. IEEE Transactions on Professional
Communication, 48(1), 10-21. doi: 10.1109/TPC.2004.843292

Skylar, A.A. (2009). A comparison of asynchronous online text-based lectures and synchronous
interactive web conferencing lectures. Issues in Teacher Education,18(2), 69-84.

Media & Technology: Static vs. Dynamic Technologies

I don’t know that I am at one end of the dynamic/static spectrum or the other. The thing that would guide me the most in deciding what technology or delivery method to use for a given activity or objective is what is the tool that does the job best. Of course if there is a dynamic tool that does the job just as well it is clearly beneficial to utilize it as opposed to a more static tool. It is always challenging for me to write about this because I have such limited experience in distance education. My work as a teacher has always been in the classroom. As a public school teacher budgetary issues are always a concern. As Fahey (2009) observes print, among several strengths, is cheap.

There are so many amazing tools available, and many are free. Thus making the incorporation of dynamic technologies into instructional design more available. But Fahy (2009) does also note that while coming down, cost still limits widespread access. This is, in all likelihood, where smart phones will soon make a significant impact. Many struggle to afford a laptop or desktop computer as well as an ISP. Smart phones make a computer, albeit currently less powerful than most laptop or desktop computers, a very affordable.

Bernard, R., Abrami, P., Lou, Y., Borokhovski, E., Wade, A., Wozney, L., et al. (2004). How does distance education compare with classroom instruction? A meta-analysis of the empirical literature. Review of Educational Research, 74(3), p. 379–439.

Fahy , P.J. (2009). Characteristics of interactive online learning media. In Anderson, T. (Ed.). The Theory and Practice of Online Learning. (2nd ed.). (p. 167-199). Edmonton, AB: Athabasca University Press.

Jonassen, D.H., Carr, C., & Yueh, H. (1998). Computers as mindtools for engaging learners in critical thinking. TechTrends, 43(2), p. 24-32.

McGreal, R. & Elliot, M. (2009). Technologies of online learning (E-learning). In Anderson, T. (Ed.). The Theory and Practice of Online Learning. (2nd ed.). (p. 143-166). Edmonton, AB: Athabasca University Press.


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

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

VIdeo Project Storyboard

This is my new outline/storyboard. There is still a bit of work to do, but this feels like a more solid footing than the first attempt.

Screen One

The following words and phrases and images will stream across the screen

1. Asynchronous and Synchronous Communication

2. Presenter

3. Jacqueline Moloney

4. Image of Jacqueline Moloney

5. Vice Chancellor at UMASS Lowell

6. Image of UMASS Lowell

7. Board of Directors – Sloan-C

8. Awarded the Sloan Consortium Most Outstanding Achievement in Online Learning by an Individual in 2009

Screen Two

1. A series of images will stream across the screen, each displaying s technology used in asynchronous and/or synchronous communication

2. Sounds will play in the background, Dr. Moloney’s voice will be part of that background noise

Screen Three

1. Intro to topic

a) Voiceover

i. Asynchronous and synchronous communications provide e-learning with unique capabilities to create a both powerful learning environment and community of learners from around the world

b) Image

i. Globe in hands dissolves in from background

Screen Four

Synchronous Communication

Applications

Screen Five

1. Live chats

a) voiceover

i. Provide the opportunity to replicate a traditional classroom for content instruction

ii. Can help create a strong feeling of connection between the class and teacher

b) Images

i. Elluminate whiteboard and chat area still images

Screen Six

1. Web conferencing technologies

a. Voiceover

i. Can create strong connections among class members and instructors among collaborative groups images

b. Various images of web conferencing will move across the screen while voiceover plays

Screen Seven

1. Asynchronous Communication

a. Voiceover

i. Define, is unique to e-learning

ii. Allows anytime, anywhere education

a. Provides immense flexibility to working professionals, parents, students living too far from a traditional university

b. Provides an ideal environment for constructivist approach to learning

c. Allows powerful student-student interactions

b. Images

i. Students using various asynchronous communication technologies

Screen Eight

1. Discussion Boards

a. Voiceover

i. Provides time to reflect prior to engaging in class discussion

ii. Anonymous nature allows ‘shy’ students more confidence when engaging in class discussion

b. Images

i. Various images of discussion board and a student compsing a discussion

Screen Nine

2. Collaborative assignments

a. Voiceover

i. Have the power to create a strong feeling of community in an environment that many report as bringing feelings of isolation

b. Images

i. Student posting an assignment to google docs

ii. Student using Elluminate

c. Video clip of Dimdim

Engaging Learners with New Strategies and Tools

While several of the tools included in the graphic organizer below are not commonly used, there are several so pervasive they have entered new verbs into the language. Email, IM, and texting, found in any dictionary, are accepted as part of the language. Skypeing, though maybe not yet in dictionaries, is part of the vernacular. Each of these tools can be useful to the e-learner and e-teacher. Each of these tools, from a technological determinist viewpoint, determine how we utilize them and play a key role in social change (Kanuka, 2008).

A ubiquitous tool is instant messaging. This technology is a powerful synchronous tool for relaying content, working collaboratively or foster discussion among classmates and instructors. When used within the classroom environment, like ClassChat, its synchronous nature helps build a strong social connection between class members. It also provides prompt feedback, a key factor in helping students feel connected in an online learning environment. It can be used to deliver and clarify content and as a collaborative tool. As a general communication tool, for querying about assignments, etc., it is a less effective tool.

Email is another common technology. While it lacks the immediacy of IMing and exists ‘outside’ the classroom it is a useful tool for setting up ‘meeting times and communicating modes of communication and responsibilities in group projects.

Skype is another tool commonly in use. It is an excellent synchronous communication tool with both chat and video capability. It is useful for collaborative groups and can be useful for generating class discussion or relaying content. The synchronous and video nature of this tool can create strong social connection among classmates and instructors.

The one ubiquitous technology that will continue to grow in its capabilities and can utilize all of the above mentioned tools is the ‘smart phone’ (Hutchinson, Tin, & Cao, 2008). They are making their way into many professions. A survey of physicians showed a significant percentage own smart phones and utilize medical apps with those phones. Analyst Charles Golvin predicts the next wave of internet users, likely in the billions, will largely access the internet via smartphones. For many who cannot afford computers smartphones are the answer to staying connected with friends. The internet access smartphones provide, along with texting and many other apps, will make this a multifaceted tool for e-learner and e-teacher.

http://mobihealthnews.com/4354/survey-63-of-physicians-with-smartphones-use-apps/

http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/2009-10-20-social-network-smartphone_N.htm

http://www.pe.com/localnews/healthcare/stories/PE_News_Local_S_healthapps25.3ab439c.html

http://www.ama-assn.org/amednews/2009/10/26/bica1026.htm

Anderson, T. (2008). Teaching in an online learning context. In Anderson, T. (Ed.). The Theory and Practice of Online Learning. (2nd ed.). (pp. 343-366). Edmonton, AB: Athabasca University Press.

Kanuka, H, (2008). Understanding e-learning technologies-in-practice through philosophies-in-practice. In Anderson, T. (Ed.). The Theory and Practice of Online Learning. (2nd ed.). (pp. 91-118). Edmonton, AB: Athabasca University Press.

Hutchinson, M., Tin, T. & Cao, Y. (2008). In Anderson, T. (Ed.). The Theory and Practice of Online Learning. (2nd ed.). (pp. 202-219). Edmonton, AB: Athabasca University Press.

McGreal, R. & Elliot, M. (2009). Technologies of online learning (E-learning). In Anderson, T. (Ed.). The Theory and Practice of Online Learning. (2nd ed.). (pp. 143-166). Edmonton, AB: Athabasca University Press.

Moller. M. Designing Communities of Learners for Asynchronous Distance Education. Retrieved from http://sylvan.live.ecollege.com/ec/crs/default.learn?CourseID=3821634
&Survey=1&47=5075954&ClientNodeID=984645&coursenav=1&bhcp=1.

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

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

McGreal, R. & Elliot, M. (2008). Technologies of online learning (E-learning).
Siemens, G. (2007). Curatorial teaching, Retrieved from: http://learnonline.wordpress.com/2007/09/20/10-minute-lecture-george-siemens-curatorial-teaching/

Assessment of Collaborative Learning

From personal experience I can say grading group work can be very challenging. Even in a F2F classroom where you can observe the students’ working it is hard to know exactly how much each student has contributed to a collaborative product. But there are many ways to provide effective assessment for collaborative online projects and they are well worth the effort. These include:

• Making assessment the starting place of course design
• Collaborative assessment not a one-time, one-method thing
• Teacher-directed, rubrics – clear easy to understand
• Learner-centered incorporating self-reflection
• Incorporate fulfillment of role in the collaborative group
• Criterion-referenced, context specific

Much like Wiggins & McTighe’s (2005) backward design of curricular units described in Understanding by Design, good collaborative learning assessment should be the starting point in designing online collaborative projects. Your end goals, what skills, knowledge and understandings you want your students have, are your key assessment points.

Participation in a collaborative learning community can be complex. To equitably assess student participation, roles in that community must be clearly outlined by the teacher from the start. Rubrics clearly describing expected performance levels can help in this process. Both self- and peer-assessments should be incorporated into participation grading.

Assessment of the final product should be a collaborative effort as well. Again the basis for assessment must be clearly outlined by the instructor. Rubrics, again, are an excellent format for communicating expected outcomes. The teacher is responsible for the final grad, but some component of that grade should allow for group and peer group assessment.

Assessment should also be an ongoing process. Feedback must be provided to the group and by group members themselves as to how they are fulfilling their roles and making progress toward their end product. Guidelines must be outlined for such giving and receiving feedback. It should also be incorporated into the course grade to encourage students to engage in providing effective feedback.

Writing clear, simple rubrics can be challenging. Getting students to use them effectively can be challenging as well. This is something my colleagues and I have experienced with our middle school students. But providing them and continually reminding students to check their progress against the rubrics gives them a clear picture of what is expected.

While challenging assessment of collaborative online projects can provide powerful learning. Product, participation, feedback and self-reflection, each incorporated as part of the final grade, provide the opportunity for many levels of learning to occur in collaborative projects. This deep, rich learning is what all educators, online, blended or F2F, should strive for.



Laureate (2008). Learning communities. George Siemens. [Video program]. Retrieved from http://sylvan.live.ecollege.com/ec/crs/default.learn?CourseID=3821634&Survey=1&47=6164563&ClientNodeID=984645&coursenav=1&bhcp=1

MacDonald, J. (2003). Assessing online collaborative learning: Process and product. Computers & Education, 40(4), 377-391.

MacGregor, J. Assessment in and of Collaborative Learning. Retrieved from http://www.evergreen.edu/washcenter/resources/acl/index.html

Moller. M. Designing Communities of Learners for Asynchronous Distance Education. Retrieved from http://sylvan.live.ecollege.com/ec/crs/default.learn?CourseID=3821634
&Survey=1&47=5075954&ClientNodeID=984645&coursenav=1&bhcp=1.

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

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

Wiggins, G. & McTighe, J. (2005). Understanding by Design. (2nd Ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ.: Prentice Hall.

Asynchronous versus Synchronous Communication

This is my project outline to this point. It is still very much a work in progress. I have found several articles but am not satisfied with the scope of all of them. Some meet my needs well others not quite. Exploring this topic is really opening my eyes to the ability of e-learning to provide great depth in the learning process. Because of it asynchronous and synchronous abilities E-learning seems to be uniquely capable of providing a highly effective constructivist learning experience.

1. Asynchronous Communication
a. Allows anytime, anywhere education
i.Provides immense flexibility to working professionals, parents,
students living too far from a traditional university
ii. Provides an ideal environment for constructivist approach to learning
b. Allows powerful student-student interactions
c. Discussion Boards
i. Provides time to reflect prior to engaging in class discussion
ii. Anonymous nature allows ‘shy’ students more confidence when engaging in
class discussion
d. Collaborative assignments
i. Have the power to create a strong feeling of community in an environment
that many report as bringing feelings of isolation
2. Synchronous Communication
a. Live chats and live classes
i. Provide the opportunity to replicate a traditional classroom for content
instruction
ii. Can help create a strong feeling of connection between the class and
teacher
b. Skype and other conferencing technologies
i. Can create strong connections among
1. class members and instructors
2. among collaborative groups

References

Er, E., Özden, M.Y., & Arifoğlu, A. (2009) Livelms: A blended e-learning environment: A model proposition for integration of asynchronous and synchronous e-learning. The International Journal of Learning, 16(2), 449-460.

Hrastinski, S. (2007). Participating in Synchronous Online Education. (Doctoral dissertation, Lund University). Retrieved from http://lup.lub.lu.se/luur/download?func=downloadFile& recordOId=599311&fileOId=600490

Hrastinski, S. (2008). A study of asynchronous and synchronous e-learning methods discovered
that each supports different purposes. EDUCAUSE Quarterly, 4, 51-55.

Miller, W. & Webster, J.K. (1997) A comparison of interaction needs and performance of distance learners in synchronous and asynchronous classes. Paper presented at American Vocational Association Convention.
Skylar, A.A. (2009). A Comparison of Asynchronous Online Text-Based Lectures
and Synchronous Interactive Web Conferencing Lectures, Issues in Teacher Education, 18(2), 69-84