Transcript Best Pedagogical Practices for Online Learning Curt Bonk, Indiana University President, CourseShare.com [email protected] http://php.indiana.edu/~cjbonk http://CourseShare.com Who are some of the key players…

Best Pedagogical Practices for
Online Learning
Curt Bonk, Indiana University
President, CourseShare.com
[email protected]
http://php.indiana.edu/~cjbonk
http://CourseShare.com
Who are some of the key
players…
Tips for Success
Univ of Missouri Extension, Distance
Learning Design Center (DLDC)
http://dldc-courses.ext.missouri.edu/dldcwww/dlplanning/
 Give pts for participation & contribution.
 Set time limits for task, feedback, etc.
 Set quantity for regular participation.
 Provide chat transcripts for those unable to
attend.
 Reward early submission.
 Make first online discussion an ungraded ice
breaker.
Karen Lazenby Instructor
Qualities
(University of Pretoria, Nov., 2001, [email protected])
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Web-Smart (technology smart)
Flexible (ability to shift between roles)
Patient
Responsive
Friendly
Positive
Supportive
Online Strategies
(Karen Lazenby, University of Pretoria, Nov., 2001)
• Limit lecturing online—promote selfdirected 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
Guy Kemshal-Bell
Technical & Further Education (TAFE) in Australia
([email protected])
(Had Instructors Rate 21 Online Teaching
Competencies From TAFE Questionnaire)
Online Teaching Skills
The Online Teacher, TAFE, Guy Kemshal-Bell (April, 2001)
• Technical: email, chat, Web development
• Facilitation: engaging, questioning, listening,
feedback, providing support, managing
discussion, team building, relationship building,
motivating, positive attitude, innovative, risk
taking
• Managerial: planning, reviewing, monitoring,
time management
========================================
– From provider to content to designer of learning experiences.
– From oracle to guide and resource provider
– From solitary teacher to member of team
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)
Less Impt Skills or Attributes (scale 0-3)
The Online Teacher, TAFE, Guy Kemshal-Bell (April, 2001)
•
•
•
•
•
•
Higher-level Web page development (.606)
Use of video/audioconferencing (1.06)
Ability to develop simple Web pages (1.45)
Skills in using online chat (1.84)
Ability to build online teams (2.10)
Skills in planning, monitoring trng (2.20)
Ability to say dumb things.
Ability to offend people.
Ability to sleep 24 X 7.
Ability to get distracted.
Three Most Vital Skills
The 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)
Let’s brainstorm comments
(words or short phrases) that
reflect your overall attitudes and
feelings towards online teaching…
Feelings Toward Online Teaching
The Online Teacher, TAFE, Guy Kemshal-Bell (April, 2001)
(Note: 94 practitioners surveyed.)
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Exciting (30)
Challenging (24)
Time consuming (22)
Demanding (18)
Technical issue (16); Flexibility (16)
Potential (15)
Better options (14); Frustrating (14)
Collab (11); Communication (11); Fun (11)
E-Moderating
E-Moderating: The Key to Teaching and Learning Online,
(Gilly Salmon, (1999) Kogan Page)
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
Know when to stay silent for a few days.
Close off unused or unproductive conferences.
Provide a variety of relevant conference topics.
Deal promptly with dominance, harassment, etc.
Weave, summarize, and archive often.
Be an equal participant in the conference.
Provide sparks or interesting comments.
Avoid directives and right answers.
Acknowledge all contributions.
Support others for e-moderator role.
Pedagogical Recommendations
(Berge, 1995, The role of the online instructor/facilitator)
• Draw attention to conflicting views
• Don’t expect too much/thread
• Do not lecture (Long, coherent sequence
of comments yields silence)
• Request responses within set time
• Maintain non-authoritarian style
• Promote private conversations
Managerial Recommendations
(Berge, 1995, The role of the online instructor/facilitator)
• Distribute lists of participants
• Provide timely administrative info—books,
enrollment, counseling, etc.
• Change procedures that are not working
• Change misplaced subject headings
• Decisively end discussion sessions
• Don’t overload
Research on Nine Online Courses
(Vanessa Dennen, San Diego State Univ)
• 9 case studies of online classes using
asynchronous discussion
• Topics: sociology, history, communications,
writing, library science, technology, counseling
• Range of class size: 15 - 106
• Level: survey, upper undergraduate, and graduate
• Tools: custom and commercial
• Private, semi-public, and public discussion areas
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
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
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!
Ron Oliver: Edith Cowan
University in Australia
http://elrond.scam.ecu.edu.au//oliver/;
[email protected]
Professor of Interactive Multimedia, and the Director of the
Centre for Research in Information Technology and
Communications
Collaborative and
Constructivist Web Tasks
(McLoughlin & Oliver, 1999; Oliver & McLoughlin, 1999))
1. Apprenticeship: Q&A; Ask an Expert (chats & async).
2. Case-Based and Simulated Learning: exchange
remote views; enact events online.
3. Active Learning: Design Web pages and project
databases.
4. Reflective/Metacognitive Learning: Reflect in online
journals, bulletin boards
5. Experiential Learning: Post (articulate ideas) to
discussion groups
6. Authentic Learning: PBL, search current databases
Pedagogical Techniques of CMC
(Paulsen, 1995, The Online Report on Pedagogical Techniques for
Computer-Mediated Communication)
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Collective databases, Access to Online Resources
Informal socializing (online cafes)
Seminars (read before going online)
Public tutorials
Peer counseling, learning partnerships
(Online Support Groups)
6. Simulations, games, and role plays
7. Free Flowing Discussions/Forums
8. Email interviews
9. Symposia or speakers on a theme
10. The notice board (class announcements)
Framework for Pedagogical CMC Techniques
(Paulsen, 1995, The Online Report on Pedagogical Techniques for
Computer-Mediated Communication)
1. One-alone Techniques: Online journals,
online databases, interviews, online
interest groups.
2. One-to-one Techniques: Learning
contracts, internships, apprenticeships.
3. One-to-many Techniques: Lectures,
symposiums, skits.
4. Many-to-many Techniques: Debates,
simulations, games, case studies,
discussion groups, brainstorming,
Delphi techniques, nominal group
process, forums, group projects.
Jennifer Hoffman, InSync
Training
([email protected])
Ideal Environment of
Synchronous Trainer
Jennifer Hoffman, Online Learning Conference (2001, Oct.)
 A private, soundproof room.
 High-speed connection; telephone;
powerful computer; additional computer;
tech support phone #
 Studio microphone and speakers
 A “Do Not Disturb” sign
 Near restroom; pitcher of water
Other Survival Tips
Jennifer Hoffman, Online Learning Conference (2001, Oct.)
• Prepare a class roster; prepare quick tour
• Start promptly; load applic ahead of time
• Welcome to the session/class; explain
goals; ask for feedback on goals.
• Instruct on communication methods—hand
raising, chat, whiteboard, voice, email.
• Provide phone number for emergencies
• Be ready for delays with planned ad-lib stuff
Considerations: The Event
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
Perhaps call or send notes to missing students
Vary your instructional strategies; maximize
interactivity
• Make it visual—color, sound, animation
• Design 10-minute breaks every 90 minutes
Use Signals for Tech Checks & to Clarify Tasks
Dealing with Difficult Learners
• Situation: A joke is made early in the
synchronous discussion and a student
keeps referring back to it even though it no
longer applies.
• Situation: Guest expert has trouble
accessing the system and, in the meantime,
students are making fun of him/her.
• Situation: Guest expert or instructor is
located in one site and students are all
located at another. Students begin to
chatter about irrelevant things.
Redirect Off-Task Students
Dealing with Difficult Learners
(Barbazette, Feb 2002)
• Confront known disruptive participants
and ask for help before the event
• Know who question askers are and ask for
their help before they interrupt
• Ask direct questions of talkers and
nonparticipants
• Ask each person to make a summary of
the learning pts
• Acknowledge various pts of view.
Dealing with Difficult Learners
(Barbazette, Feb 2002)
Questions to Guide Learner Behavior:
• …that’s an interesting question, how have
you handled similar situations?
• …you have had a lot of knowledge
management experiences, what would you
suggest?
• …how do others of you view this issue?
What else to do?
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Send out or post rules and procedures
Point to those on task as role models
Ask what interests them
Have an agenda or structure
Lead to peak moments
Break into small teams with goals
Focus participants!!!
If can’t control, then what to do?
•
•
•
•
•
Join up
Give up
Commit suicide
Find a new job
Protest e-learning
Pedagogical Tips
(Bonk 1998; Indiana University)
• Build peer interactivity
• Utilize multiple forms of
assessment
• Provide feedback cues (dots)
• Embed choices (avatars, tasks,
etc.)
• Simplify (everything!!!)
• Offer early feedback
• Scheduling something due early
Web Advice for Instructors
(Bonk, 2001; Jamie Chamberlin, (2001, Jan), Digital Dissemination,
Monitor on Psych, pp. 64-67.
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Do some usability testing
Start small--Try 1-2 new things each time
Read free reports
Market/Share what do
Archive work, repurpose it, use it
Be flexible
Take a course online—be a student
Find a tech mentor, join a discussion board
Contact potential partners, interns, students
But how to determine the
pedagogical quality of courses and
course materials you develop?
Just a Lot of Bonk
• Variety: tasks, topics, participants,
accomplishments, etc.
• Interaction extends beyond class
• Learners are also teachers
• Multiple ways to succeed
• Personalization and choice
• Clarity and easy to navigate course
Quality on the Line: Benchmarks for
Success in Internet-Based Distance Ed
(Blackboard & NEA, 2000)
Teaching/Learning Process
• Student interaction with faculty is facilitated
through a variety of ways.
• Feedback to student assignments and questions
is provided in a timely manner.
• Each module requires students to engage
themselves in analysis, synthesis, and
evaluation as part of their course assignments.
• Course materials promote collaboration among
students.
–
http://www.ihep.com/Pubs/PDF/Quality.pdf
Quality on the Line: Benchmarks for
Success in Internet-Based Distance Ed
(Blackboard & NEA, 2000)
Other Benchmark Categories:
• Institutional Support: incentive, rewards, plans
• Course Development: processes, guidelines,
teams, structures, standards, learning styles
• Course Structure: expectations, resources
• Student Support: training, assistance, info
• Faculty Support: mentoring, tech support
• Evaluation and Assessment: review process,
multiple methods, specific standards
The Sharp Edge of the Cube:
Pedagogically Driven Instructional
Design for Online Education
Syllabus Magazine, Dec, 2001, Nishikant Sonwalkar
• five functional learning styles—
apprenticeship, incidental, inductive,
deductive, discovery.
•
http://www.syllabus.com/syllabusmagazine/article.asp?id=5858
New Methodology for Evaluation: The
Pedagogical Rating of Online Courses
Syllabus Magazine, Jan, 2002, Nishikant Sonwalkar
The Pedagogical Effectiveness Index:
(1) Learning Styles: (see previous page)
(2) Media Elements: text, graphics, audio,
video, animation, simulation
(3) Interaction Elements: feedback,
revision, e-mail, discussion, bulletin
http://www.syllabus.com/syllabusmagazine/article.asp?i
d=5914
For more info, e-mail: [email protected]
New Methodology for Evaluation: The
Pedagogical Rating of Online Courses
Syllabus Magazine, Jan, 2002, Nishikant Sonwalkar
Summative evaluation instrument for
rating online courses:
(1) Content Factors: quality, media, authentic
(2) Learning Factors: interactivity, testing & feedback,
collaboration, ped styles
(3) Delivery Support Factors: accessible, reporting, user
management, content
(4) Usability Factors: clarity, chunk size, layout
(5) Technological Factors: bandwidth, database
connectivity, server capacity,browser
What are your quality standards?
What do we need???
FRAMEWORKS!
#1: 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:
6, 11
1- 6, 11.
8, 9, 12
2, 9, 11.
3, 6, 8, 11, 13.
3, 6, 7-9, 11, 13.
1, 3, 8-9, 10, 13.
3, 8, 12-13.
2-4, 8-9, 12-14.
2, 9, 11, 14.
1-5, 14.
6, 8, 10-13.
#2. 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, news.
Student to Student: Comments, sample work, links.
to Instructor: Votes, tests, papers, evals.
to Practitioner: Web links, resumes, reflections
Practitioner to Student: Internships, jobs, e-fieldtrips
to Instructor: Opinion surveys, fdbk, listservs
to Practitioner: Forums, listservs, prof devel.
#3. Models of Technology in
Training and Education
(Dennen, 1999, Bonk et al., 2001)
• Enhancing the Training
– computers for extra activities: drill and practice
CD
• Extending the Training
– transcend the classroom with virtual field trips and Online
Collaborative Teams.
• Transforming the Training
– allowing learners to construct knowledge bases
and resources from multiple dynamic resources
regardless of physical location or time.
#4. The Web Integration Continuum
(Bonk et al., 2000)
Level 1: Course Marketing/Syllabi via the Web
Level 2: Web Resource for Student Exploration
Level 3: Publish Student-Gen Web Resources
Level 4: Course Resources on the Web
Level 5: Repurpose Web Resources for Others
=======================================
Level 6: Web Component is Substantive & Graded
Level 7: Graded Activities Extend Beyond Class
Level 8: Entire Web Course for Resident Students
Level 9: Entire Web Course for Offsite Students
Level 10: Course within Programmatic Initiative
5. The Hats of the Online
Instructor
(Berge, 1995; Bonk, Kirkley, Hara, &
Dennen, 2001)
5. 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.shtml.
Online Concierge
• To provide support and
information on request (perhaps
a map of the area…) (Gilly
Salmon, 2000).
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).
Online Negotiator
• Where knowledge construction
online is desired, the key role for
the e-moderator is one of
negotiating the meaning of
activities and information
throughout online discussion
and construction (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
Sure…but Cat Herder???
Activity: Pick a Online Instruction
Metaphor from 40 Options
Reality:
Ideal World:










___________
___________
___________
___________
___________
___________
___________
___________
___________
___________
6.
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...,“,
"Who can tell me....?,“ "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
xyz did here," "How
have you seen this
before?," "When you
did your internship,
what was the first
thing you did?,"
10. Encouraging
Articulation/Dialogue
Prompting:
"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
or 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 email 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."
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, he/she
points out 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 or 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 no matter 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.
Who do you think invented the
Internet???
Alt Role: Connector/Relator/Linker/Synthesizer
Funny thing is that Al thinks he
invented e-learning as well!!!
INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY
(June 26, 2002) *AL GORE IS TEACHING a distance-education course
on the role of families in discussions about community
development. Videotapes of the two-semester course, made this past
year, are available for other institutions to use.
SEE http://chronicle.com/free/2002/06/2002062601t.htm
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).
What are your best
practices???