Transcript A Ten Level Web Integration Continuum for Educational

Facilitating Asynchronous
Discussion and Blended Learning
Curt Bonk,
Professor, Indiana University
[email protected]
http://php.indiana.edu/~cjbonk
http://CourseShare.com
Blended Ideas
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Take to lab for online group collaboration.
Take to computer lab for Web search.
Take to an electronic conference.
Put syllabus on the Web.
Create a class computer conference.
Require students sign up for a listserv.
Use e-mail minute papers & e-mail admin.
Have students do technology demos.
Blended Learning. Sample
Synchronous and
Asynchronous Activities
(David Brown, Syllabus, January 2002,
p. 23; October 2001, p. 18)
I. Ten Asynchronous Activities
1. Social Ice Breakers: 8 nouns, expectations, storytelling
cartoon time, chat room buds, etc.
2. Learner-Content Interactions: challenges, animations, selftesting, double jeopardy quizzing
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
Scenario-Based Simulations
Starter-Wrapper Discussion
Anonymous Suggestion Box and Student Formative Surveys
Role Play: Assume the Persona of a Scholar
Case-Based Laboratories & Online Experiments
Authentic Data Analysis
Just-in-Time Teaching; Just-in-Time Syllabus
Perspective Taking: Foreign Languages, Field Experiences,
etc.
1. Social Ice Breakers
a. 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)
b. 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. Social Ice Breakers
c. Eight Nouns Activity:
1. Introduce self using 8 nouns
2. Explain why choose each noun
3. Comment on 1-2 peer postings
d. Coffee House Expectations
1. Have everyone post 2-3 course expectations
2. Instructor summarizes and comments on how they
might be met
(or make public commitments of how they will fit into
busy schedules!)
2a. Learner-Content Interactions: SelfTesting
2b. Learner-Content Interactions:
Double-Jeopardy Quizzing
Gordon McCray, Wake Forest University, Intro to
Management of Info Systems
1. Students take objective quiz (no time limit and not
graded)
2. Submit answer for evaluation
3. Instead of right or wrong response, the quiz returns a
compelling probing question, insight, or conflicting
perspective (i.e., a counterpoint) to force students to
reconsider original responses
4. Students must commit to a response but can use
reference materials
5. Correct answer and explanation are presented
3. Scenario-Based Simulations
4. 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
5. Formative Feedback
Anonymous Suggestion Box
George Watson, Univ of Delaware, Electricity
and Electronics for Engineers:
1. Students send anonymous course feedback (Web
forms or email)
2. Submission box is password protected
3. Instructor decides how to respond
4. Then provide response and most or all of suggestion
in online forum
5. It defuses difficult issues, airs instructor views, and
justified actions publicly.
6. Caution: If you are disturbed by criticism, perhaps do
not use.
5. Formative Feedback: Survey
Student Opinions
(e.g., InfoPoll, SurveySolutions, Zoomerang,
SurveyShare.com)
5. Poll Students for Formative Feedback
6. Role Play
A. 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
7a. Online Co-Laborative Psych Experiments
PsychExperiments
(University of Mississippi)
Contains 30 free psych
experiments
• Location independent
• Convenient to instructors
• Run experiments over
large number of subjects
• Can build on it over time
• Cross-institutional
Ken McGraw, Syllabus,
November, 2001
7b. Case-Based Learning: Student
Cases
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)
8. Authentic Data Analysis:
Wireless Technology
9. Just-In-Time-Teaching
Gregor Novak, IUPUI Physics
Professor (teaches teamwork,
collaboration, and effective
communication):
1. Lectures are built around student
answers to short quizzes that have an
electronic due date just hours before
class.
2. Instructor reads and summarizes
responses before class and weaves
them into discussion and changes the
lecture as appropriate.
10. Perspective Taking
1. Have students receive e-newsletters from a
foreign magazine as well as respond to related
questions.
2. Students assume roles of those in literature from
that culture and participate in real-time chats
using assumed identity.
3. Perspective sharing discussions: Have learners
relate the course material to a real-life
experience.
II. Types of Blended
Synchronous Activities
1. Webinar, Webcast
2. Social Ice-Breakers: Know You Rooms
3. Synchronous Testing and Assessment
4. Sync Guests or Expert Forums
5. Threaded Discussion Plus Expert Chat
6. Moderated Online Team Meeting
7. Secret Coaches and Protégées
8. Collaborative Online Writing
9. Online Mentoring
10. Graphic Organizers in Whiteboard (e.g., Venn)
1. Webinar
2. Social Ice Breakers
1. KNOWU Rooms:
a. Create discussion forums or chat room topics
for people with diff experiences (e.g., soccer
parent, runner, pet lovers, like music, outdoor
person). Find those with similar interests.
b. Complete eval form where list people in class
and interests. Most names wins.
3. Synchronous Testing & Assessment
(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.
4. Electronic Guests & Mentoring
5. Threaded Discussion plus Expert
Chat (e.g., Starter-Wrapper + Sync Guest Chat)
6. Moderated Online Team Meeting
7. Secret Coaches and Protégées
1. Input learner names into a Web site.
2. When learners arrive, it randomly assigns them a
secret protégé for a meeting.
3. Tell them to monitor the work of their protégé but
to avoid being obvious by giving feedback to
several different people.
4. Give examples of comments.
5. At end of mtg, have protégées guess coaches.
6. Discuss how behavior could be used in other
meetings.
8. Collaborative Online Writing:
Peer-to-Peer Document Collaboration
9. Online Mentoring
(e.g., GlobalEnglish)
10. Graphic Organizers (e.g., Digital
Whiteboards)
Web Facilitation???
Poor Instructors
• Little or no feedback
given
• Always authoritative
• Kept narrow focus of
what was relevant
• Created tangential
discussions, fact
questions
• Only used “ultimate”
deadlines
Good Instructors
• Provided regular
qual/quant feedback
• Participated as peer
• Allowed perspective
sharing
• Tied discussion to
grades, other tasks.
• Used incremental
deadlines
Deadlines
• Deadlines motivated participation
– Message counts increased in the
days immediately preceding a
deadline
• Deadlines inhibited dialogue
– Students posted messages but did
not discuss
– Too much lag time between initial
messages and responses
Modeling
• Instructor modeling increased the
likelihood of student messages meeting
quality and content expectations
• Modeling was more effective than
guidelines
Guidelines and Feedback
• Qualitative discussion guidelines and
feedback helped students know what
their participation should look like
• Quantitative discussion guidelines and
feedback comforted students and was
readily understood by them
• Feedback of both varieties was needed
at regular intervals, although the
qualitative feedback need not be
individualized
Facilitation (Dennen, 2001)
• High instructor presence
– 1:1 student-instructor message ratio
created low peer interaction
– Participant-like IP facilitated peer
interaction
• Instructor modeling increased student
messages meeting quality and content
expectations
• Modeling was more effective than guidelines
• Deadlines motivated participation
• Deadlines inhibited dialogue
Facilitation (Dennen, 2001)
• Participation was higher when students had
a clear goal & extrinsic motivation to
participate
• Relevance has a positive effect on
participation
• Greater dialogue when shared perspectives
• Fact-based q’ing strategies did not work
well
• Consistent, regular fdbk motivates students
• Quantitative and qualitative guidelines
Facilitating Electronic Discussion
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Have Students Initiate, Sign up for Roles
Provide Guidelines, Due Dates, and Structure
Weave and Summarize Weekly
Be patient, prompt, and clear
Foster Role Play, Debate, and Interaction
Constantly Monitor, Converse not Dictate
Extend Beyond Class with Peers/Practitioners
More on How to Facilitate...
•
•
•
•
Find common ref pt--mission, purpose, need
Guide to negotiate/co-construct meaning
Establish some common practices or rituals
Hold regularly scheduled events--chats,
tours
• Create opportunities to contribute/develop
• Apply course to lived experiences
• Keep simple, give choice, build respect &
tension
Common Instructor Complaints
a) Students don’t participate
b) Students all participate at the last minute
c) Students post messages but don’t
converse
d) Facilitation takes too much time
e) If they must be absent, the discussion
dies off
f) Students are confused
Reasons why...
Students don’t participate
– Because it isn’t required
– Because they don’t know what is
expected
Students all participate at last minute
– Because that is what was required
– Because they don’t want to be the first
Instructor posts at the last minute
How would you respond?
1. Who invented ______?
2. Who was the most influential
political figure of the 1990’s?
3. What were the 3 main points of the
reading?
Common problems with online
discussion prompts
Too vague
– Learners have no idea how to respond
Too fact-based
– Only one or two persons need to
respond
Lack directions for interactions
– Learners don’t know what acceptable
participation looks like
Elements of a good prompt
• Specifies the desired response type
• Allows for multiple correct answers
(perspective sharing, unique
application of knowledge)
• Provides guidance for peer interaction
• Fosters reflection, thinking, or
collaboration
A 5-Stage Approach: Async
1) Initial topic or idea generation
2) Initial response
3) Respond to peers (can continue for as
long as desired)
4) Wrap up questions
5) Reflect
A sample 5-part prompt
Step 1: Idea Generation
– Find a recent news story online or
announcement that provides an
example of one of the issues or
concepts in our recent readings. Post
the URL and a brief summary of the
article. Do not go into detail of what this
is an example of or how it relates to the
reading.
A sample 5-part prompt (2)
Step 2: Initial Response
– Select and read one of your classmate's
contributions, and post a message under their
thread that discusses what major issues this
article relates to and support your assertions
with references to our course readings. If there
are secondary issues, mention those as well.
Please respond to a message that has not yet
received a response so that we can make sure
everyone gets at least one response. You may,
of course, respond to multiple threads if you
wish.
3-sentence rule
 Avoid overwhelming “I agree” type
messages
 Require that all students post messages
of 3 sentences or longer
 The result:
1. I agree with you.
2. That’s a good idea
3. Ummm…. I have to actually say
something now!
Make Discussion an Activity
 Debate a topic
 Search for and share resources
 Learn about a topic
 Build a study guide
 Expand on a topic
 Find real-world cases
Online Mentoring and
Assistance Online
Twelve forms of electronic learning
mentoring and assistance
(Bonk & Kim, 1998; Tharp, 1993; Bonk et al., 2001)
1. Social (and cognitive)
Acknowledgement: "Hello...," "I
agree with everything said so far...,"
"Wow, what a case," "This case certainly
has provoked a lot of discussion...," "Glad
you could join us..."
2. Questioning: "What is the name of this
concept...?," "Another reason for this might
be...?," "An example of this is...," "In contrast to
this might be...,""What else might be important
here...?," "Who can tell me....?," "How might the
teacher..?." "What is the real problem here...?,"
"How is this related to...?,“, "Can you justify
this?"
3. Direct Instruction: "I think in
class we mentioned that...," Chapter ‘X’
talks about...," "Remember back to the
first week of the semester when we went
over ‘X’ which indicated that..."
4. Modeling/Examples: "I think I
solved this sort of problem once when I...,"
"Remember that video we saw on ‘X’
wherein ‘Y’ decided to...," "Doesn't ‘X’ give
insight into this problem in case ‘Z’ when
he/she said..."
5. Feedback/Praise: "Wow, I'm
impressed...," "That shows real insight
into...," "Are you sure you have
considered...," "Thanks for responding to
‘X’...," "I have yet to see you or anyone
mention..."
6. Cognitive Task Structuring: "You
know, the task asks you to do...," "Ok, as was
required, you should now summarize the peer
responses that you have received...," "How
might the textbook authors have solved this
case."
7. Cognitive
Elaborations/Explanations:
"Provide
more information here that explains your rationale,"
"Please clarify what you mean by...," "I'm just not
sure what you mean by...," "Please evaluate this
solution a little more carefully."
8. Push to Explore: "You might want
to write to Dr. ‘XYZ’ for...," "You might
want to do an ERIC search on this
topic...," "Perhaps there is a URL on
the Web that addresses this topic..."
9. Fostering Reflection/Self
Awareness: "Restate again what the
teacher did here," "How have you seen this
before?," "When you took over this class, what
was the first thing you did?," "Describe how
your teaching philosophy will vary from this...,"
"How might an expert teacher handle this
situation?"
10. Encouraging
Articulation/Dialogue Prompting:
"What was the problem solving process the teacher
faced here?," "Does anyone have a counterpoint or
alternative to this situation?," "Can someone give
me three good reasons why...," "It still seems like
something is missing here, I just can't put my finger
on it."
11. General
Advice/Scaffolding/Suggestions:
"If I were in her shoes, I would...," "Perhaps I would
think twice about putting these people into...," "I
know that I would first...," "How totally ridiculous
this all is; certainly the “person” should be able to
provide some..."
12. Management (via private e-mail
or discussion): "Don't just criticize....please
be sincere when you respond to your peers," "If you
had put your case in on time, you would have gotten
more feedback." "If you do this again, we will have
to take away your privileges."
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.
E-Moderator
• Refers to online teaching and facilitation
role. Moderating used to mean to preside
over a meeting or a discussion, but in the
electronic world, it means more than that.
It is all roles combined—to hold meetings,
to encourage, to provide information, to
question, to summarize, etc. (Collins &
Berge, 1997; Gilly Salmon, 2000); see
http://www.emoderators.com/moderators.s
html.
Other Hats
Personal Learning Trainer
• Learners need a personal trainer to lead
them through materials and networks,
identify relevant materials and advisors
and ways to move forward (Mason, 1998;
Salmon, 2000).
E-Police
• While one hopes you will not call yourself
this nor find the need to make laws and
enforce them, you will need some Code of
Practice or set procedures, and protocols
for e-moderators (Gilly Salmon, 2000).
Other Hats
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Weaver—linking comments/threads
Tutor—individualized attention
Participant—joint learner
Provocateur—stir the pot (& calm flames)
Observer—watch ideas and events unfold
Mentor—personally apprentice students
Community Organizer—keep system going
Still More Hats
Assistant
Devil’s advocate
Editor
Expert
Filter
Firefighter
Facilitator
Gardener
Helper
Lecturer
Marketer
Mediator
Priest
Promoter
How form a
community…???
A learning community is a group of individuals
interested in a common topic or area, who
engage in knowledge related transactions as
well as transformations within it. They take
advantage of the opportunity to exchange
ideas and learn collectively.
(Bonk & Wisher, 2000;
Fulton & Riel, 1999)
Factors in Creating any
Community
(1) membership/identity
(2) influence
(3) fulfill of indiv needs/rewards
(4) shared events & emotional
connections
(McMillan & Chavis, 1986).
History, stories, expression, identity, participation, respect,
autonomy, celebration, team building, shape group,
Schwier, 1999)
Help Categorize the Degree of
Online Community (Chao, 1999)
(1) self-disclosures, time, energy
(2) refer to norms, rules, others
(3) give and receive info, express
need, thank, criticize, suggest
(4) special stories, symbols,
events, identify spiritual bonds
How Facilitate Online Community?
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Safety: Establish safe environment
Tone: Flexible, inviting, positive, respect
Personal: Self-disclosures, open, stories telling
Sharing: Share frustrations, celebrations, etc
Collaboration: Camaraderie/empathy
Common language: conversational chat space
Task completion: set milestones & grp goals
Other: Meaningful, choice, simple, purpose...
What About
Student Roles???
Participant Categories
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Web Resource Finder
Starter-Wrapper
Researcher
Online Journal Editor
Expert Resource Gatherer
Technology Reviewer
Mentor/Expert
Instructor
Seeker/Questioner
Role 1: Starter/Mediator
Reporter/Commentator
• Summarizes the key terms, ideas, and issues in
the chapters, supplemental instructor notes,
journal articles, and other assigned readings and
asks thought provoking questions typically
before one’s peers read or discuss the concepts
and ideas. In effect, the starter is a reporter or
commentator or teacher of what to expect in the
upcoming readings or activities. Once the
“start” is posted, this student acts as a mediator
or facilitator of discussion for the week.
Role 2: Wrapper/Summarizer
Synthesizer/Connector/Reviewer
• Connects ideas, synthesizes discussion,
interrelates comments, and links both
explicit and implicit ideas posed in online
discussion or other activities. The learner
looks for themes in online coursework
while weaving information together. The
wrapping or summarizing is done at least
at the end of the week or unit, but
preferably two or more times depending on
the length of activity.
Role 3: Conqueror or
Debater/Arguer/Bloodletter
• Takes ideas into action, debates with
others, persists in arguments and
never surrenders or compromises
nomatter what the casualties are
when addressing any problem or
issue.
Role 4: Devil's Advocate or
Critic/Censor/Confederate
• Takes opposite points of view for the
sake of an argument and is an
antagonist when addressing any
problem posed. This might be a weekly
role that is secretly assigned.
Role 5: Idea
Squelcher/Biased/Preconceiver
• Squelches good and bad ideas of others
and submits your own prejudiced or
biased ideas during online discussions
and other situations. Forces others to
think. Is that person you really hate to
work with.
Role 6: Optimist/Openminded/Idealist
• In this role, the student notes what
appears to be feasible, profitable,
ideal, and "sunny" ideas when
addressing this problem. Always sees
the bright or positive side of the
situation.
Role 7: Emotional/Sensitive/Intuitive
• Comments with the fire and warmth of
emotions, feelings, hunches, and
intuitions when interacting with others,
posting comments, or addressing
problems.
Role 8: Idea Generator Creative
Energy/Inventor
• Brings endless energy to online
conversations and generates lots
of fresh ideas and new
perspectives to the conference
when addressing issues and
problems.
Role 9:
Questioner/Ponderer/Protester
• Role is to question, ponder, and
protest the ideas of others and the
problem presented itself. Might
assume a radical or ultra-liberal
tone.
Role 10: Coach
Facilitator/Inspirer/Trainer
• Offers hints, clues, supports, and
highly motivational speeches to get
everyone fired-up or at least one lost
individual back on track when
addressing a problem or situation.
Role 11: Controller/Executive
Director/CEO/Leader
• In this role, the student oversees
the process, reports overall
findings and opinions, and
attempts to control the flow of
information, findings, suggestions,
and general problem solving.
Role 12: Slacker/Slough/Slug/Surfer
Dude
• In this role, the student does little or
nothing to help him/herself or his/her
peers learn. Here, one can only sit back
quietly and listen, make others do all the
work for you, and generally have a laid
back attitude (i.e., go to the beach) when
addressing this problem.
So What Happens to
Instructors Role in the
Future???
“We are evolving out of the era of the Lone
Rangers…faculty members can choose to
be involved in the design, development,
content expertise, delivery, or distribution
of course…” (Richard T. Hezel)
Sarah Carr, (Dec 15, 2000, A47), A Day in the Life of a New Type of Professor,
The Chronicle of Higher Education
Track 1: Technical Specialist
• Help critique technical aspects of
media and materials built into online
courses. Here one would be part of a
course development team or
instructional design unit. Freelance
learning object evaluator. Here one
would likely operate alone or as part
of a consulting company.
Track 2: Personal Guide
• Provide program or course guidance
to students on demand or
preplanned. Becomes more of a
generalist across university
offerings. For example, one might
help students see how different
learning objects or modules fit
together into a degree.
Track 3: Online Facilitator
• Offers timely and informed support
to students struggling to complete
an online course or inserting
questions and nudging development
of students who are successfully
completing different modules. This
is the most similar to college
teaching positions today.
Track 4: Course Developer
• Help develop specific courses or
topic areas for one or more
universities. In many institutions,
this will move beyond a course
royalty system to a paid position.
Track 5: Course or Program
Manager
• Supervisor or manager of an entire
new program or courses, most often
leading to certificates or master’s
degrees. Similar in stature to a
development head or chairperson.
Track 6: Work for Hire Online
Lecturer
• Is a freelance instructor for one
course or a range of course. May
work on just one campus or on a
range of campuses around the world.
While this will be highly popular and
rejuvenate careers, institutional
policies are yet to be sorted out.
Track 7: High School Teacher
• As universities begin to offer
secondary degrees, some college
faculty with online teaching
experience and teaching degrees will
find positions in those classes.
Some may view such positions as
being demoted to the minor leagues.
Track 8: Unemployed
• If one does not find a niche in one
or more of the above tracks or
roles, he or she will likely be
unemployed or highly
unsuccessful.
Some Final Advice…
Or Maybe Some Questions???