Summarizing E-Learning Research and Best Practices

for Higher Education

Curt Bonk, Indiana University(and CourseShare.com)

cjbonk@indiana.edu

http://php.indiana.edu/~cjbonk

Ok, What Does the Research Say???

Tons of Recent Research

Not much of it

...is any good...

What’s the Basic DL Finding?

Research since 1928 shows that DL students perform as well as their counterparts in a traditional classroom setting.

Per: Russell, 1999, The No Significant Difference Phenomenon (5th Edition), NCSU, based on 355 research reports.

http://cuda.teleeducation.nb.ca/nosignificantdifference/

It is Flawed!• lack of control groups• nonrandom assignment to groups• questionable validity• anecdotal• limited to certain educational environments• Flaws in research designs

- Only 36% have objective learning measures- Only 45% have comparison groups– (The Report, 1999; Wisher et al., 1999).

More Flaws!!!• Impact of individual not multiple technologies.• Fails to consider learning styles & indiv diffs

(e.g., self-efficacy, motivation, gender).• Lack reliable and valid testing instruments.• Does not address higher dropout rates.• Generally lacks theoretical grounding.

– (National Center for Education Statistics, 1999; Phipps & Merisotos, 1999; Wisher et al., 1999).

Electronic Conferencing: Quantitative Analyses

• Usage patterns, # of messages, cases, responses• Length of case, thread, response• Average number of responses• Timing of cases, commenting, responses, etc.• Types of interactions (1:1; 1: many)• Data mining (logins, peak usage, location, session length,

paths taken, messages/day/week), Time-Series Analyses (trends)

Electronic Conferencing: Qualitative Analyses

• General: Observation Logs, Reflective interviews, Retrospective Analyses, Focus Groups

• Specific: Semantic Trace Analyses, Talk/Dialogue Categories (Content talk, q’ing, peer fdbk, social acknowledgments, off task)

• Emergent: Forms of Learning Assistance, Levels of Questioning, Degree of Perspective Taking, Case Quality, Participant Categories

Research on Instructors Online• Constantly shifting roles

– (Rice-Lively, 1994)

• Host: Connects people on fringes of party– (Rogan & Denton, 1996)

• Four Key Acts of Instructors:– pedagogical, managerial, technical, and social– (Ashton, Roberts, & Teles, 1999)

• Instructors Tend to Rely on Simple Tools– (Peffers & Bloom, 1999)

• Job Varies--Plan, Interaction, Admin, Tchg– (McIsaac, Blocher, Mahes, & Vrasidas, 1999)

Instructor as Facilitator• Minor changes moderating = great diff in interaction

– (Howell-Richardson & Mellar, 1996) • Informal, exploratory conversation fosters risktaking

& knowledge sharing– (Weedman, 1999)

• Conversational instructional style produces higher and more complex participation

• If teacher-centered, less explore, engage, interact– (Peck, and Laycock, 1992)

• Student interaction & instructor monitoring produced most favorable student evals – (Rada, 1998)

Network Conferencing Interactivity

(Rafaeli and Sudweeks, 1997) 1. > 50 percent of messages were reactive.

2. Only around 10 percent were truly interactive.

3. Most messages factual stmts or opinions

4. Many also contained questions or requests.

5. Frequent participators more reactive than low.

6. Interactive messages more opinions & humor.

7. More self-disclosure, involvement, & belonging.

8. Attracted to fun, open, frank, helpful, supportive environments.

Interaction Research Findings• High level of mutual support

– including acknowledgments– encouragement– personal information and feelings – Metainteraction: In effect, these online conferences

blended both cognitive and interactive acts.

• Avoid peer controversy & critical attitudes• Need intersubjectivity online wherein participants

agree, disagree, challenge, & negotiate.– Bakardjieva and Harasim (1999)

Critical Thinking(Newman, Johnson, Webb, and Cochrane, 1997)

Used Garrison’s five-stage critical thinking model• Critical thinking in both CMC and FTF envir.• Depth of critical thinking higher in CMC envir.

– More likely to bring in outside information (personal experience, course materials, etc.),

– Link ideas and offer interpretations,– Generate important ideas and solutions.

• FTF settings were better for generating new ideas and creatively exploring problems.

• May be even more evident in case studies, debates, symposia, role play, voting, etc.

Social Construction of Knowledge (Gunawardena, Lowe, and Anderson, 1997)

• Five Stage Model1. Share ideas,2. Discovery of Idea Inconsistencies, 3. Negotiate Meaning and Areas of Agreement, 4. Test and Modify,5. Phrase Agreements

• In global debate, students very task driven.• Dialogue remained at Phase I with the sharing of info, not

negotiating, constructing, of knowledge• Replicated in follow-up study of 25 managers

– (Kanuka & Anderson, 1998).

Collaborative Behaviors(Curtis and Lawson, 1999)

• Most common were: (1) Planning, (2) Contributing, and (3) Seeking Input.

• Other common events were:(4) Initiating activities,(5) Providing feedback,(6) Sharing knowledge

• Few students challenge others or attempt to explain or elaborate

• Recommend: using debates and modeling appropriate ways to challenge others

The Focus Should Shift from whether it makes a difference to

where it makes a difference– Phipps & Merisotis (1999)

One common finding—online courses need sensible pedagogical approaches that allow students opportunities to communicate their learning – Sloan Center for Asynchronous Learning

Environments (SCALE) at the University of Illinois can be reduced to (Arwan, Ory, Bullock, Burnaska, & Hanson, 1998)

Bonk’s Research

Asynchronous Possibilities

1. Link to peers and mentors.2. Expand and link to alternative resources. 3. Involve in case-based reasoning.4. Connect students in field to the class.5. Provide e-mail assistance.6. Bring experts to teach at any time.7. Provide exam preparation.8. Foster small group work.9. Engage in electronic discussions & writing.10. Structure electronic role play.

Pedagogical Actualities

1. Teacher-Created Cases2. Student-Created Cases3. Online Mentoring4. Starter-Wrapper Discussions5. Field Reflections6. Reading Reactions7. Debates (Teacher and Student Created)8. Critical Friend Activities9. Web Buddies10. Synchronous Group Problem Solving

E-Learning Vision and Goals?

• Making connections through cases.

• Appreciating different perspectives.

• Students as teachers.

• Greater depth of discussion.

• Fostering critical thinking online.

• Interactivity online.

Quantitative Methods

Average results for prior to TITLE (TITLE):

• Participants per semester: 130 (>300)

• Cases per semester: 230 (624)

• Cases per student: 1.75 (same 1.80)

• Average responses per case: 4.5 (3.9)

• Average words per case: 100-140 (198)

Topic Number ofCases

Management 312Motivation 185Instructional Approaches 178Individual Differences (special educationand gifted)

152

Hot Topics (e.g., teacher burnout,violence in school, corporal punishment,and drugs and alcohol)

83

Development (physical, cognitive, andsocial/emotional)

70

Behaviorism and Social Learning Theory 57

Frequent Case Topics

Overall Major Findings

• COW enhanced student learning– provided a link between classroom and field– encouraged learning about technology

• COW extended student learning– students got feedback from outside their immediate

community– students saw international perspective

• COW transformed student learning– students took ownership for learning– students co-constructed knowledge base

Level of Cognitive Processing: All Posts

Surface33%

Deep55%

Both12%

Surface

Deep

Both

Research on Starter-Wrapper TechniqueGraduate Class

Surface vs. Deep PostsSurface Processing• making judgments

without justification, • stating that one shares

ideas or opinions already stated,

• repeating what has been said

• asking irrelevant questions

• i.e., fragmented, narrow, and somewhat trite.

In-depth Processing• linked facts and ideas, • offered new elements of

information,• discussed advantages and

disadvantages of a situation,• made judgments that were

supported by examples and/or justification.

• i.e., more integrated, weighty, and refreshing.

Army Research Project: Blended E-LearningOverall frequency of interactions across

chat categories (6,601 chats).

On-Task55%Social

30%

Mechanics15%

Findings from the Qualitative Analysis

U.S. students more action-oriented and pragmatic in seeking results or giving solutions.

Finnish students were more group focused as well as reflective and theoretically driven.

Korean students were more socially and contextually driven.

E-LearningProblems and Solutions

1. Tasks Overwhelm2. Confused on Web3. Too Nice Due to

Limited Share History4. Lack Justification5. Hard not to preach6. Too much data7. Communities not easy

to form

Train and be clear Structure time/dates due Develop roles and

controversies Train to back up claims Students take lead role Use Email Pals; set

times and amounts Embed Informal/Social

E-LearningBenefits and Implications

1. Shy open up online2. Minimal off task3. Delayed collab more

rich than real time; discussion extends

4. Students can generate lots of info

5. Minimal disruptions6. Extensive E-Advice7. Excited to Publish

Use async conferencing Create social tasks Use Async for debates;

Sync for help, office hours (use both to reflect)

Structure generation and force reflection/comment

Foster debates/critique Find Practitioners/Experts Ask Permission

Survey: 222 College Faculty(Early Adopters of the Web)

Any Online Teaching Experiences?

Figure 18. Online Teaching Experiences

None24%

Partially Online39%

Completely Online19%

Partially and Completely

18%

Is Teaching Online Time-Consuming?

Figure 20. Teaching Online Courses is More Time-Consuming than Teaching Traditional Courses

Agree41%

Strongly Disagree

2%Unsure

10%

Disagree6%

Strongly Agree41%

Figure 15. Comfortable with Degrees Earned Entirely Online

01020304050

Str

ongl

yD

isag

ree

Dis

agre

e

Uns

ure

Agr

ee

Str

ongl

yA

greeP

erce

nt

of

Res

po

nd

ents

Bachelor's

Master's

Doctoral

Courseware Features Like with Current Tool

• Comprehensive, consistent, customizable• Ease of use, flexible, reliable• Data and course security• Detailed statistics on bulletin board use• Good online help• Internal e-mail systems, drop boxes, chats• Posting of tasks & due dates on Web• Randomized test banks

What Percent of Time Teach Online?

Figure 21. Percent of Instructional Time Spent Teaching Online During the Next Decade

0

20

40

60

80

1 Year 2 Years 5 Years 10 Years

Time Teaching Online

Pe

rce

nt

of

Re

sp

on

de

nts

0%

1-25%

25-50%

51-75%

76-100%

Any Obstacles to Teaching Online?

Figure 32. Major Obstacles to Use of the Web in Teaching

010203040506070

Obstacles

Per

cen

t o

f R

esp

on

den

ts

Problems FacedAdministrative:• “Lack of admin vision.”

• “Lack of incentive from admin and the fact that they do not understand the time needed.”

• “Lack of system support.”

• “Little recognition that this is valuable.”

• “Rapacious U intellectual property policy.”

• “Unclear univ. policies concerning int property.”

Pedagogical:• “Difficulty in performing

lab experiments online.”• “Lack of appropriate

models for pedagogy.”

Time-related:• “More ideas than time to

implement.” • “Not enough time to

correct online assign.”• “People need sleep; Web

spins forever.”

What Instructional Activities are Needed?

Figure 30. Online Instructional Activities

010203040506070

ScientificSimulations

Data Analysis Lab Performance Critical andCreative Thinking

Per

cen

t o

f R

esp

on

den

ts

Actual Use High Usefulness

Best of Online Pedagogical Strategies…

Online Strategies(Karen Lazenby, University of Pretoria, Nov.,

2001)

• Limit lecturing online—promote self-directed learning

• Set clear rules for posting and interaction• Explain tasks and overlooked info.• Let learners synthesize key points.• Publish best work of students (with permission)• Involve participation from outside experts

Changing Role of the TeacherThe Online Teacher, TAFE, Guy Kemshal-Bell (April, 2001)

• From oracle to guide and resource provider

• From providers of answers to expert questioners

• From solitary teacher to member of team

• From total control of teaching environment to sharing as a fellow student

• From provider of content to designer of learning experiences.

Key Skills or Attributes (scale 0-3)The Online Teacher, TAFE, Guy Kemshal-Bell (April, 2001)

• Ability to provide effective online fdbk (2.86)• Ability to engage the learner (2.84)• Ability to provide direction and support (2.82)• Skills in online listening (2.76)• Ability to use email effectively (2.70)• Ability to motivate online learners (2.66)• Positive attitude to online teaching (2.66)• Skills in effective online questioning (2.65)

Knowledge Sharing & Construction

E-Moderating: The Key to Teaching and Learning Online, (Gilly Salmon, (1999) Kogan Page)

• Be an equal participant in the conference.• Provide sparks or interesting comments.• Avoid directives and right answers.• Acknowledge all contributions.• Weave, summarize, and model discussion.• Support others for e-moderator role.• Reward knowledge construction &

accomplishments.• Be tolerant of twists in the discussion.

Pedagogical Recommendations(Berge, 1995, The role of the online instructor/facilitator)

• Don’t expect too much/thread• Draw attention to conflicting views• Do not lecture (Long, coherent

sequence of comments yields silence)

• Request responses within set time• Maintain non-authoritarian style• Promote private conversations

• Little or no feedback given• Always authoritative• Kept narrow focus of what

was relevant• Created tangential

discussions• Only used “ultimate”

deadlines

• Provided regular qual/quant feedback

• Participated as peer• Allowed perspective

sharing• Tied discussion to grades,

other assns.• Used incremental deadlines

Poor Instructors Good Instructors

Dennen’s Research on Nine Online Courses (sociology, history,

communications, writing, library science, technology, counseling)

Web-Based Resources(Oliver & McLoughlin, 1999)

• URL Postings in Dynamic Database (for inquiry)

• Electronic Discussions (to see ideas unfold)• Debates (submit arguments in a public space)• Personal Reflections (encourage to rebut/refute)• Concept Maps (see relationships)• Nominal Group Process (to gain consensus)• Survey (can aggregate student responses)

Pedagogical Techniques of CMC(Paulsen, 1995, The Online Report on Pedagogical

Techniques for Computer-Mediated Communication)

1. Collective databases2. Informal socializing (online cafes)3. Seminars (read before going online)4. Public tutorials5. Peer counseling6. Simulations, games, and role plays7. Forum8. Email interviews9. Symposia or speakers on a theme10. The notice board (class announcements)

Synchronous Considerations

Jennifer Hoffman, ASTD, Learning Circuits, (2001, March)• Log on early; students come 15 minutes early.• Do tech checks of microphones (sound check).• Check to see if students brought needed items• Welcome to the session/class; explain goals; ask

for feedback on goals.• Vary instructional strategies; max interactivity• Make it visual—color, sound, animation A “Do Not Disturb” sign & be near a restroom;

pitcher of water

Pedagogical Tips (Bonk 1998)

• Test system with immediate task• Build peer interactivity• Embed choices (avatars, tasks, etc.)• Simplify (everything!!!)• Embed peer and portfolio fdbk

tools• Offer early feedback• Link to prior work (legacies)

What do we need???

FRAMEWORKS!

1. Reflect on Extent of Integration:The Web Integration Continuum

Level 1: Course Marketing/Syllabi via the WebLevel 2: Web Resource for Student ExplorationLevel 3: Publish Student-Gen Web ResourcesLevel 4: Course Resources on the WebLevel 5: Repurpose Web Resources for Others======================================Level 6: Web Component is Substantive & GradedLevel 7: Graded Activities Extend Beyond ClassLevel 8: Entire Web Course for Resident StudentsLevel 9: Entire Web Course for Offsite StudentsLevel 10: Course within Programmatic Initiative

2. Reflect on Interactions:Matrix of Web Interactions

(Cummings, Bonk, & Jacobs, in press)

Instructor to Student: syllabus, notes, feedback

to Instructor: Course resources, syllabi, notes

to Practitioner: Tutorials, articles, listservs

Student to Student: Intros, sample work, debates

to Instructor: Voting, tests, papers, evals.

to Practitioner: Web links, resumes

Practitioner to Student: Internships, jobs, fieldtrips

to Instructor: Opinion surveys, fdbk, listservs

to Practitioner: Forums, listservs

3. Models of Technology in Education (Dennen, 1999)

• Enhancing the Curriculum– computers for extra activities: drill and

practice CD-ROMs; tool; intelligent tutor

• Extending the Curriculum– transcend classroom and engage in activities not

possible without it: Online class conferences, Cross-University Collaboration, CSCL.

• Transforming the Curriculum– allowing learners to construct knowledge bases and

resources in a community setting regardless of physical location or time and join a learning community.

4. Reflect on Environment:How to Be Learner-Centered on the Web

(Bonk & Cummings, 1998)

1. Safe Lrng Community

2. Foster Engagement

3. Give Choice

4. Facilitate Learning

5. Offer Feedback

6. Apprentice Learning

7. Use Recursive Tasks

8. Use Writing & Reflection

9. Build On Web Links

10. Be Clear & Prompt Help

11. Evaluate Dimensionally

12. Personalize in Future

5. New Theories• Situated Learning--asserts that

learning is most effective in authentic, or real world, contexts with problems that allow students to generate their own solution paths (Brown, Collins, & Duguid, 1989).

• Constructivism--concerned with learner's actual act of creating meaning (Brooks, 1990). The constructivist argues that the child's mind actively constructs relationships and ideas; hence, meaning is derived from negotiating, generating, and linking concepts within a community of peers (Harel & Papert, 1991).

6. Four Key Hats of Instructors:– Technical—do students have basics? Does their

equipment work? Passwords work?

– Managerial—Do students understand the assignments and course structure?

– Pedagogical—How are students interacting, summarizing, debating, thinking?

– Social—What is the general tone? Is there a human side to this course? Joking allowed?

– Other: firefighter, convener, weaver, tutor, conductor, host, mediator, filter, editor, facilitator, negotiator, e-police, concierge, marketer, assistant, etc.

7. Online Mentoring and Assistance Online

Twelve forms of electronic learning mentoring and assistance

(Bonk & Kim, 1998; Tharp, 1993; Bonk et al., 2001)

There is a problem…

Do we want degrees in electronic page turning???

• To get the certificate, learners merely needed to “read” (i.e. click through) each screen of material

• Is this pedagogically sound?

How Bad Is It?“Some frustrated Blackboard users who say

the company is too slow in responding to technical problems with its course-management software have formed an independent users’ group to help one another and to press the company to improve.”

(Jeffrey Young, Nov. 2, 2001, Chronicle of Higher Ed)

Three Most Vital SkillsThe Online Teacher, TAFE, Guy Kemshal-Bell (April, 2001)

• Ability to engage the learner (30)

• Ability to motivate online learners (23)

• Ability to build relationships (19)

• Technical ability (18)

• Having a positive attitude (14)

• Adapt to individual needs (12)

• Innovation or creativity (11)

Intrinsic Motivation

“…innate propensity to engage one’s interests and exercise one’s capabilities, and, in doing so, to seek out and master optimal challenges

(i.e., it emerges from needs, inner strivings, and personal curiosity for growth)

See: Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human behavior. NY: Plenum Press.

Extrinsic Motivation

“…is motivation that arises from external contingencies.” (i.e., students who act to get high grades, win a trophy, comply with a deadline—means-to-an-end motivation)

See Johnmarshall Reeve (1996). Motivating Others: Nurturing inner motivational resources. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

8. E-Learning Pedagogical Strategies

Motivational/Ice Breakers:1. 8 Noun Introductions

2. Coffee House Expectations

3. Scavenger Hunt

4. Two Truths, One Lie

5. Public Commitments

6. Share-A-Link

Creative Thinking:1. Brainstorming

2. Role Play

3. Topical Discussions

4. Web-Based Explorations & Readings

5. Recursive Tasks

6. Electronic Séance

Critical Thinking:1. Electronic Voting and Polling

2. Delphi Technique

3. Reading Reactions

4. Summary Writing and Minute Papers

5. Field Reflection

6. Online Cases Analyses

7. Evaluating Web Resources

8. Instructor as well as Student Generated Virtual Debates

Collaborative Learning:1. Starter-Wrapper Discussions

2. Structured Controversy

3. Symposium or Expert Panel

4. Electronic Mentors and Guests

5. Round robin Activities

6. Jigsaw & Group Problem Solving

7. Gallery Tours and Publishing Work

8. Email Pals/Web Buddies and Critical/Constructive Friends

Pedagogical Tools Needed!!!

• Creative Thinking

• Critical Thinking

• Cooperative Learning

• Motivational

Motivational Terms?See Johnmarshall Reeve (1996). Motivating Others: Nurturing inner motivational

resources. Boston: Allyn & Bacon. (UW-Milwaukee)

1. Tone/Climate: Psych Safety, Comfort, Belonging2. Feedback: Responsive, Supports, Encouragement3. Engagement: Effort, Involvement, Excitement4. Meaningfulness: Interesting, Relevant, Authentic5. Choice: Flexibility, Opportunities, Autonomy6. Variety: Novelty, Intrigue, Unknowns7. Curiosity: Fun, Fantasy, Control8. Tension: Challenge, Dissonance, Controversy9. Interactive: Collaborative, Team-Based, Community10. Goal Driven: Product-Based, Success, Ownership

1. Tone:A. Instructor Modeling

• Students look to online instructors to model expectations

• The first week of a course is a critical period for setting the tone and the level of discussion

• If an instructor is personable, students will be personable

• If an instructor is very formal, students will be formal

1. Tone: B. Thiagi-Like Ice Breakers

1. Introductions: require not only that students introduce themselves, but also that they find and respond to two classmates who have something in common (Serves dual purpose of setting tone and having students learn to use the tool)

2. Peer Interviews: Have learners interview each other via e-mail and then post introductions for each other.

1. Tone/Climate:B. Thiagi-Like Ice Breakers

3. Eight Nouns Activity:1. Introduce self using 8 nouns2. Explain why choose each noun3. Comment on 1-2 peer postings

4. Coffee House Expectations1. Have everyone post 2-3 course expectations2. Instructor summarizes and comments on how they

might be met(or make public commitments of how they will fit into

busy schedules!)

1. Tone/Climate:C. Thiagi-Like Ice Breakers

5. Public Commitments:

Have students share how they will fit the coursework into their busy schedules.

6. 99 Seconds of Fame: In an online synchronous chat, give each student 99 seconds to present themselves and field questions.

7. Chat Room Buds: Create a discussion prompt in one of “X’ number of chat rooms. Introduce yourself in the chat room that interests you.

1. Tone/Climate:B. Thiagi-Like Ice Breakers

8. Storytelling Cartoon Time: Find a Web site that has cartoons. Have participants link their introductions or stories to a particular cartoon URL. Storytelling is a great way to communicate. http://www.curtoons.com/cartooncoll.htm

9. Favorite Web Site: Have students post the URL of a favorite Web site or URL with personal information and explain why they choose that one.

1. Tone/Climate: B. Thiagi-Like Ice Breakers

10. Scavenger Hunt1. Create a 20-30 item online scavenger

hunt (e.g., finding information on the Web)

2. Post scores

11. Two Truths, One Lie1. Tell 2 truths and 1 lie about yourself2. Class votes on which is the lie

2. FeedbackA. Requiring Peer Feedback

Alternatives:1. Require minimum # of peer

comments and give guidance (e.g., they should do…)

2. Peer Feedback Through Templates—give templates to complete peer evaluations.

3. Have e-papers contest(s)

2. Feedback:B. Acknowledgement via E-mail, Live

Chats, Telephone (Acknowledge questions or completed assignments)

2. Feedback:C. Self-Testing and Self-Assessments

(Giving Exams in the Chat Room!, Janet Marta, NW Missouri State Univ, Syllabus, January 2002)

1. Post times when will be available for 30 minute slots, first come, first serve.

2. Give 10-12 big theoretical questions to study for.

3. Tell can skip one.

4. Assessment will be a dialogue.

5. Get them there 1-2 minutes early.

6. Have hit enter every 2-3 sentences.

7. Ask q’s, redirect, push for clarity, etc.

8. Covers about 3 questions in 30 minutes.

2. Feedback (Instructor)D. Reflective Writing

Alternatives:

1. Minute Papers, Muddiest Pt Papers

2. PMI (Plus, Minus, Interesting), KWL

3. Summaries

4. Pros and Cons1.Email instructor after class on what

learned or failed to learn…(David Brown, Syllabus, January 2002, p. 23)

3. EngagementA. Annotations and Animations:

MetaText (eBooks)

3. Engagement:B. Electronic Voting and Polling

1. Ask students to vote on issue before class (anonymously or send directly to the instructor)

2. Instructor pulls out minority pt of view3. Discuss with majority pt of view4. Repoll students after class(Note: Delphi or Timed Disclosure Technique:

anomymous input till a due date and then post results and

reconsider until consensus Rick Kulp, IBM, 1999)

3. EngagementC. Survey Student Opinions

(e.g., InfoPoll, SurveySolutions, Zoomerang, SurveyShare.com)

4. Meaningfulness:A. Job or Field Reflections

1. Instructor provides reflection or prompt for job related or field observations

2. Reflect on job setting or observe in field

3. Record notes on Web and reflect on concepts from chapter

4. Respond to peers

5. Instructor summarizes postsAlternative: Pool field interviews

of practitioners

4. Meaningfulness:

B. Case Creation and Simulations 1. Model how to write a case

2. Practice answering cases.

3. Generate 2-3 cases during semester based on field experiences.

4. Link to the text material—relate to how how text author or instructor might solve.

5. Respond to 6-8 peer cases.

6. Summarize the discussion in their case.

7. Summarize discussion in a peer case.(Note: method akin to storytelling)

5. Choice:A. Multiple Topics

• Generate multiple discussion prompts and ask students to participate in 2 out of 3

• Provide different discussion “tracks” (much like conference tracks) for students with different interests to choose among

• List possible topics and have students vote (students sign up for lead diff weeks)

• Have students list and vote.

5. Choice: A. Multiple Topics

5. Choice:C. Web Resource Reviews

5. Choice:B. Discussion: Starter-Wrapper

(Hara, Bonk, & Angeli, 2000) 1. Starter reads ahead and starts discussion and others

participate and wrapper summarizes what was discussed.2. Start-wrapper with roles--same as #1 but include roles for

debate (optimist, pessimist, devil's advocate).

Alternative: Facilitator-Starter-Wrapper (Alexander, 2001)

Instead of starting discussion, student acts as moderator or questioner to push student thinking and give feedback

6. Variety: Brainstorming

• Come up with interesting topic to solve• Suggest ideas anonymously or in a chat• Encourage spin off ideas• Post list of ideas generated• Rank or rate ideas and submit to instructor• Calculate ave ratings and distribute to group

6. Variety: B. Roundrobin• Select a topic

• Respond to it

• Pass answer(s) to next person in group

• Keep passing until everyone contributes or ideas are exhausted

• Summarize and/or report or findings

7. Curiosity: A. Electronic Seance

• Students read books from famous dead people• Convene when dark (sync or asynchronous).• Present present day problem for them to solve• Participate from within those characters (e.g.,

read direct quotes from books or articles)• Invite expert guests from other campuses• Keep chat open for set time period• Debrief

7. Curiosity: B. Electronic Guests & Mentoring1. Find article or topic that is controversial2. Invite person associated with that article

(perhaps based on student suggestions)3. Hold real time chat4. Pose questions5. Discuss and debrief (i.e., did anyone

change their minds?)(Alternatives: Email Interviews with expertsAssignments with expert reviews)

8. Tension: A. Role Play

A. Role Play Personalities• List possible roles or personalities (e.g., coach, optimist,

devil’s advocate, etc.)• Sign up for different role every week (or 5-6 key roles)• Reassign roles if someone drops class• Perform within roles—refer to different personalities

B. Assume Persona of Scholar– Enroll famous people in your course– Students assume voice of that person for one or more

sessions– Enter debate topic or Respond to debate topic– Respond to rdg reflections of others or react to own

8. Tension:B. Instructor Generated Virtual Debate (or student generated)

1. Select controversial topic (with input from class)

2. Divide class into subtopic pairs: one critic and one defender.

3. Assign each pair a perspective or subtopic

4. Critics and defenders post initial position stmts

5. Rebut person in one’s pair

6. Reply to 2+ positions with comments or q’s

7. Formulate and post personal positions.

9. Interactive: A. Critical/Constructive Friends,

Email Pals, Web Buddies1. Assign a critical friend (perhaps based on

commonalities).2. Post weekly updates of projects, send reminders of

due dates, help where needed.3. Provide criticism to peer (I.e., what is strong and

weak, what’s missing, what hits the mark) as well as suggestions for strengthening. In effect, critical friends do not slide over

weaknesses, but confront them kindly and directly.

4. Reflect on experience.

9. Interactive:B. Symposia, Press Conference, or

Panel of Experts1. Find topic during semester that peaks interest2. Find students who tend to be more controversial3. Invite to a panel discussion on a topic or theme4. Have them prepare statements5. Invite questions from audience (rest of class)6. Assign panelists to start

(Alternative: Have a series of press conferences at the end of small group projects; one for each group)

10. Goal Driven:A. Group Problem Solving or Jigsaw• Provide a real-world problem• Form a committee of learners to solve the

problem• Assign a group reporter/manager• Provide interaction guidelines and deadlines

– Brainstorming– Research– Negotiation– Drafting– Editing– Reflecting

10. Goal Driven Activities A. Group Problem Solving

• Class Study Guide: Have students develop model answers to potential exam questions

• Be an Expert/Ask an Expert: Have each student choose an area in which to become expert and moderate a forum for the class. Require participation in a certain number of forums (choice)

10. Goal Driven:B. Gallery Tours

• Assign Topic or Project

(e.g., Team or Class White Paper, Bus Plan, Study Guide, Glossary, Journal, Model Exam Answers)

• Students Post to Web• Experts Review and Rate• Try to Combine Projects

Motivational Top Ten 1. Tone/Climate: Ice Breakers, Peer Sharing2. Feedback: Self-Tests, Reading Reactions3. Engagement: Q’ing, Polling, Voting4. Meaningfulness: Job/Field Reflections, Cases5. Choice: Topical Discussions, Starter-Wrapper6. Variety: Brainstorming, Roundrobins7. Curiosity: Seances, Electronic Guests/Mentors8. Tension: Role Play, Debates, Controversy9. Interactive: E-Pals, Symposia, Expert Panels10. Goal Driven: Group PS, Jigsaw, Gallery Tours

Pick One…??? (circle one)

Pick an Idea• Definitely Will Use:

___________________________

• May Try to Use: ___________________________

• No Way: ___________________________

Questions?

Comments?

Concerns?