The Wiki Web Project

Here is my PPT as a video. Let me know if you would like me to post the PPT version.

Thanks! Marci

Final Project: Social Presence

Well, here it is!! I am not the most excited about it, but I gave it my very all. I learned that I would rather talk through written communication because my speech skills need polishing.
Maybe you will learn a little something from it!

Video clips and clipart were obtained from Corel, Animation Factory, and a few were downloaded from Google images. I will post my annotated bibliography in the doc sharing area of our course.

All I can say is Tah-Dah!

Module 5 Blog Discussion

This diagram represents the difference between static and dynamic technologies as discussed in Moller’s (2008) article. Static technologies emphasize content and rely heavily on text applications. These technologies include web 1.0, print, and one-to-one restricted correspondence. On the contrary, dynamic technologies empower learners with interaction with information and social networks to conceptualize real meaning and experience wisdom. Characteristics of dynamic technologies include synchronous communication, problem-based simulations, collaboration tools, web 2.0, and mind tools (Moller, 2008).

As far as my level of familiarity, I am in the middle of the static-dynamic continuum. Static technologies do not provide high levels of interactivity with information to construct knowledge as it relates to my area of work. However, I do rely on my textbooks and journal articles to obtain the majority of content. This is an area that I would like to see improve with more real world applications through conversations with experts and visual representation. Also, static technologies do not promote collaboration with my classmates. These technologies are highly dependent on individual accountability and rarely construct personalization in interaction.

On the other hand, dynamic technologies are new in my technology repertoire. I am beginning to use wikis and blogs to participate in collaboration with peers. I have also recently chatted with classmates through Skype to reflect on class discussions and build a deeper understanding of their content discourse. Although considered middle of the road for many, these technologies are dynamic in the sense that they provide continuous opportunities to recreate information and internalize information (Kirschner & Erkens, 2006).

To move towards a more dynamic approach to learning, I must continue to reflect on information and reconstruct content to gain deeper understanding. As static technologies plagued most of my undergraduate and part of my graduate career, embracing this higher-level thinking has been a real struggle. Yet, the constant risk-taking approaches involving technologies and learning modes unfamiliar to me will supply the best learning experiences that emulate practical situations and behaviors. I am in constant conflict with tradition and innovation but courses such as this one are earning my respect as the best approach for authentic learning.

References

Jonassen, D., Carr, C., & Yueh, H. (1998, March). Computers as mindtools for engaging learners in crtical thinking. [Electronic Verson]. TechTrends, 43(2), 24-32. Retrieved July 31, 2009, from http://www.ecls.ncl.ac.uk/webprimary/elearning/ICT_Tools%5EComputers%20as%20Mindtools%5Earticle%20by%20Jonassen.pdf

Kirschner, P., & Erkens, G. (2006). Cognitive tools and mindtools for collaborative learning. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 35(2), 199-209. Retrieved July 31, 2009, from Academic Search Premier database.

Moller, L. (2008). Static and dynamic tools. [Unpublished Paper].

Slangen, L. (2005). Mind tools contributing to an ICT-rich learning environment for technology education in primary schools. [Electronic Version]. Int. J. Cont. Engineering Education and Lifelong Learning, 15(3-6), 225-239. Retrieved July 31, 2009, from http://dspace.ou.nl/bitstream/1820/608/1/050830IJCEELL%2015(3-6)%20Paper%2008%20Mindtools.pdf

Using mindtools in education. (2005). Retrieved July 31, 2009, from http://thejournal.com/articles/2005/04/01/using-mindtools-in-education.aspx

Engaging Learners With New Strategies and Tools

Click on the picture to see larger view

(Durrington, V., Berryhill, A., Swafford, J., 2006)

(McGreal, R., Elliot, M., 2008)

Engaging Learners Reflection

The graphic organizer published on this week’s blog classifies several strategies and corresponding technological tools according to content, communication, and collaboration tasks within the online environment. This reflection will justify use of these strategies and tools to engage learners and improve the online learning experience.

Content:

The most critical issue regarding content and online learning occurs between distributing learning resources and knowledge acquisition. According to Siemens (2007), the selected artifacts for an online course must be arranged and issued in such a way that learners explore information, reconstruct prior knowledge into new schemata, and engage in public discourse to achieve true wisdom. A number of technologies distribute information including CD-ROM, DVD, and acquired course management software. However, many technologies available free on the internet engage learners including podcast, vodcasts (YouTube), and online journals. Learning is commonly accessible anywhere, anytime with the latest technologies.

Communication:

Not only do students need sufficient learning resources, but they also require engaging dialogue with classmates through asynchronous or synchronous methods of communication. Audio chat technologies, email, and instant messaging provide the opportunity for online learners to provide feedback and challenge viewpoints (Durrington, V., Berryhill, A., & Swafford, J., 2006). Learning occurs when members of the community interact in meaningful conversation a (Moller, L., Harvey, D., Downs, M., & Godshalk, V., n.d.). The social networking sites and tools available on the web support communication in both synchronous and asynchronous contexts. Additionally, personal electronic exchanges facilitate interactive relationships to improve overall course satisfaction. The key to any successful online conversation is timeliness in response to participants (Durrington, V., et al., 2006).

Collaboration:

The final element of engaging learners in the online environment involves active participation in collaborative, problem-based activities. Group activities should include a small number of participants, solve relevant problems, encourage accountability, and facilitate discussion (Durrington, V., et al., 2006). The web offers several tools for collaboration including wikis, blog, and virtual worlds. Wikis enable users to review and edit text to create a collaborative product. Blogs do not allow others to edit content, however, each member may contribute to a asynchronous discussion area to solve problems. Finally, virtual worlds, an innovation that has yet to diffuse in online learning, provides a simulated environment where each participant assumes a role and participates in empirical learning (McGreal, R., & Elliot, M., 2008). Each of these tools facilitates problem-based learning and offers real experience to solving social issues in the environment.

By using familiar and simple tools throughout the online experience, students are prepared to engage in the online environment and focus on collecting and sharing perspectives rather than technicalities. The central goal of any educational program is learning. Although distance education requires multimedia applications for data transfer, the main purpose is to provide an authentic learning experience. These effective strategies and informal tools combine to provide effective student experiences and successful degree programs.

References

Durrington, V., Berryhill, A., Swafford, J. (2006). Strategies for enhancing student interactivity in an online environment. College Teaching, 54(1), 190-193. Retrieved July 15, 2009, from http://ezp.waldenulibrary.org/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=19754742&site=ehost-live&scope=site

McGreal, R., & Elliot, M. (2008). Technologies of online learning (e-learning). In T. Anderson (Ed.) The Theory and Practice of Online Learning (2nd ed., pp. 143-165). Edmonton, AB: AU Press.

Moller, L., Harvey, D., Downs, M., Godshalk, V. (n.d.). Identifying factors that effect learning community development and performance in asynchronous distance education. Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 1(4), 293-305. Retrieved July 20, 2009, from http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/custom/portlets/recordDetails/detailmini.jsp?_nfpb=true&_&ERICExtSearch_SearchValue_0=EJ621837&ERICExtSearch_SearchType_0=no&accno=EJ621837

Siemens, G. (Speaker). (2007). Curatorial teaching. Elluminate recording posted at http://learnonline.wordpress.com/2007/09/20/10-minute-lecture-george-siemens-curatorial-teaching/

Module 3: Collaboration in the Learning Community

Effective instructors in online communities have four major responsibilities including facilitate discussions and activities, model acceptable learning behaviors, participate in the development and preservation of the community, and evaluate student progress (Pallloff & Pratt, 2005). It is possible for students to complete course requirements without instructor involvement, except for the task of assessment. The evaluation process is a critical element for both instructor and student. The instructor must provide fair and challenging assessment while proving adequate student progress. The student must provide evidence of learning to receive acceptance from the instructor using chosen methods of assessment. Therefore, the means of evaluation profoundly affects the online course as it provides the final outcome for success.

The course readings for Module 3 emphasized collaborative assessment as the best approach for online learning communities. The issue in collaborative assessment involves providing individual progress monitoring based on cooperative assignments. Based on Siemens (2008a) analysis, a rating scheme based on individual contributions provides fair and targeted outcomes. This tailors assessment to individual needs by examining the impact of the student’s strengths and weakness on the final product. Davis (2007) discusses the significance of web 2.0 tools in assessing cooperative groups because it allows instructors to continuously assess individual contributions to group projects as well as provide peer assessment and feedback. Individual accountability is determined through tracking edits and additions to web-based software such as wikis and blogs.

This brings us to another issue in collaborative assessment. Students that do not wish to collaborate in online communities present challenges for the learning group and the instructor. The instructor must communicate the “participative pedagogy” at the onset of the course to inform students of the decision to utilize collaborative activities (Siemens, 2008a). Additional help from the instructor includes role-playing activities, assessment models including group and individual efforts, and collaborative awareness. Assessment plans must include rubrics for collaborative awareness to evaluate efforts of interaction within the online community (Siemens, 2008b). Members not contributing to the final product are negatively impacting the group and need to receive assignment to another group or individual form of evaluation.

Students involved with an inactive or intimidated peer should first build trust by openly discussing roles and responsibilities (Siemens, 2008b). If a team member continues to exhibit harmful behaviors towards the group, the instructor must intervene to prevent this humanistic poison from destroying group dynamic and successful outcomes.

References

Davis, V. (2007, October 9). Cooperative learning notes: Day 2. Message posted to http://coolcatteacher.blogspot.com/2007/10/cooperative-learning-notes-day-2.html

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

Siemens, G. (2008a). Assessment of Collaborative Learning [DVD]. Laureate Education, Inc.

Siemens, G. (2008b). Learning communities [DVD]. Laureate Education, Inc.

Storyboard for Social Presence

Hey Classmates,

Here is my very sketchy, somewhat unorganized storyboard. I am trying so hard to pull some ideas together. This activity is helping, but I am still working towards a creative approach because I know slides of research will not be accepted, not that I am that boring of a person anyway. I had to turn each slide into a JPG and put into moviemaker to show here in the blog. If you want to make additions to it, I have put in on my wikispace at http://mavining.wikispaces.com/Social+Presence. You can see my notes there too. It is a work in progress for sure, any suggestions are much appreciated, but I am going to be working on the video and other imaging for sure. Improvements are to come!!

Here is a little background about social presence so you know the details of my topic:

What is social presence?

The ability to represent yourself as a real person including sharing attitudes, beliefs, values, and ideas in the online environment. This is easy in face to face communication because you can actually view expressions and nonverbal cues. However, text-based environments prohibit the natural ability to show social presence, so in collaboration online, you must work at posting messages that reveal the real you and interpret messages by others in the same way.

Why is social presence an important factor in distance education?

Simply, individuals who lack social presence or who fail to connect with the perceptions of others are dissastified with online learning, increase the attrition rate, and rate instructor's as uneffective. It can also affect cognitive learning by facilitating frustration and isolation.

How do you increase social presence?

Interaction and connectivity through different types of media. Use personal experiences in post and share support with the group to promote deeper understandings of concepts and enhance learning. Collaborative group projects work well in developing social presence.

These are just a few thoughts. I have been reading about it for a while, so I didn't reference my sources because I am reflecting on the knowledge I have acquired thus far. However, the storyboard does include a reference list.

Apology

I apologize for not turning in my blog earlier than today. I like to give everyone plenty of time to post. However, my sister had a heart cath that turned into emergency heart surgery. I have become the primary caretaker of her young children for a week or so. I apologize for the delay.

Module 2 Discussion Blog

Blog Discussion 2

Communication in Distance Learning

The reliance on innovative communication tools for interaction provides an effective online learning environment. Early distance education courses primarily focused on asynchronous learning techniques such as threaded messages, email, wikis, blogs, and discussion boards. However, due to increased access and advancement of communication technologies asynchronous methods are gradually contributing more to the evolution of distance education. Videoconferencing, live chats, and phone interactions provide superior methods of communication to guide instruction and build a community of online learners (Corbeil, 2006). Although many educators argue that combining both asynchronous and synchronous technologies provides best practices in communication and personal empowerment (Saba, 2006).

Siemens (2008) agrees that advancement in communication increases acceptance and quality of online education. A variety of communication tools facilitate collaborate interactions. Hensley (2009, June 23) describes a wealth of online communication tools to enhance the classroom including Twitter, Eduslide, Google Apps, and Mikogo. (See the complete list on her blog).

Finally, wide acceptance and diffusion of communication technologies in society generates familiarity with tools used in the online environment. Learners possessing awareness of these tools immediately feel comfortable in the online environment increasing the probability of a positive learning experience (Siemens, 2008).

References

Carbeil, J.R. (2006). Desktop videoconferencing in distance education: From revolution to evolution. Retrieved June 23, 2009, from http://net.educause.edu/ir/library/powerpoint/SWR0670.pps

Hensley, P. (2009, June 23). 20 communication and networking tools for teachers. Message posted to http://successfulteaching.blogspot.com/2009/06/20-communication-and-networking-tools.html

Saba, F. (2006, December 19). On asynchronous learning. Message posted to http://www.distance-educator.com/blog/saba/

Siemens, G. (2008). The future of distance education [DVD]. Laureate Education, Inc.

The Next Generation of Distance Education

Distance education is entering a paradigm shift catapulted by increased access to online communities and the need to step out of the shadows of traditional classrooms to present a standalone approach to higher learning. According to Simonson (2008), distance education has successfully diffused as an acceptable educational approach. Yet, a restructuring of the development of online classrooms is needed for effective learning experiences. Simonson (2000) advocates the equivalency theory which utilizes an instructional design approach matching learning outcomes and activities with diverse and appropriate technologies. In this theory of learning, distance education provides learning experiences equivalent to face to face education employing different instructional strategies and activities (Simonson, 2000).

Research conducted by Huett, Moller, Foshay, and Coleman (2008) suggest that the diffusion of distance education continues to face extreme barriers including funding and general lack of approval. Huett et al. (2008) advocate a new mindset regarding distance education stemming from the refusal to continue comparison to traditional methods. Research systematically proves no significant difference in student achievement between online and face to face instruction (Huett et al., 2008). Instead, researchers should focus on successful teaching and learning within various distance education environments to restructure the instructional design and improve the nature of work and education. Simply put, “no single line of research can possibly lay a unique claim to ultimate wisdom and understanding” (Huett et al., 2008, p.66). Therefore, an evolution in distance education must determine how to meet the needs of diverse learners using a multitude of emerging technologies while maintaining focus on learning outcomes and advancement of intellectual thinking.

Similarly, both Simonson and Huett et al. understand the necessity for improving distance education. It is more important to implement a variety of theoretical ideas and instructional practices rather than focus on a single idea that may or may not positively affect the student. The development of the next generation of distance education courses has the potential to transform the learning experience and possibly restructure traditional methods of learning. Technology, the medium surrounding online instruction, is a driving force to enhancing collaboration, generating knowledge, reflecting on ideas, and motivating lifelong learning. Along with technology, the evolution of distance education must utilize revolutionary educators unafraid to take risk in the eternal effort to raise student intellectual property and passion for commitment and success.

References

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 [Electronic Version]. TechTrends: Linking Research & Practice to Improve Learning, 52(5), 63-67. Retrieved June 4, 2009, from Academic Search Premier database.

Simonson, M. (Speaker). (2008). Distance Education: The Next Generation [DVD]. Laureate Education, Inc.

Simonson, M. (2000). Making decisions: The use of electronic technology in online classrooms [Electronic Version]. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 84, 29-44. Retrieved June 4, 2009, from Academic Search Premier database.