learning revolution

Literature Review:

Key Factors Impacting the Success of Online Collaborative Learning

Online collaborative learning can be studied from the perspective of social interaction among participants. In her discussion of Vygotsky’s theories, Woolfolk (2007) stated that “human activities take place in cultural settings and cannot be understood apart from these settings” (p. 39). This suggests that any study of online collaborative learning should include a focus on the relationships among participants, the structures of those relationships, such as means by which relationships are forged and maintained, and the different roles of participants involved in the collaborative learning exercise.

Sociocultural perspectives can be found in the literature, though researchers often focus on different factors relating to online collaborative learning. Tseng, Wang, Heng-Yu, and Sun (2009) demonstrated this socioculturalist perspective by elaborating on issues of trust and group practices in their study of online collaborative learning. The same perspective was evident in a study by Havard, Du, and Xu (2008) that discussed the effects of social presence and media richness on group identity. Smith (2008) demonstrated this socioculturalist perspective in her study focusing on the importance of trust issues in collaborative groujps. Chang (2008) studied the impact of online discussions on collaborative artifacts. Thompson and Heng-Yu (2010) examined interdependence, synthesis, independence, and participation to understand the relationship between online collaboration and the performance quality of groups.

In the study by Tseng, Wang, Heng-Yu, and Sun (2009) the researchers sought to understand the relationship between team satisfaction and instructor support, team members’ trust and familiarity with each other, communication, and organization practice. The factors and surveys used in the study were well grounded in the literature investigating online collaborative learning. Unfortunately, a convenience sample comprising mostly females was used to assemble participants. More than half of the participants had taken previous online courses. It might have been useful to test whether or not these were significant factors impacting the findings.

A study by Havard, Du, and Xu (2008) investigated communication media and collaboration and factors that impacted successful online collaboration. The researchers identified important elements of collaborative learning from which they developed the questions they sought to answer. Their topic of inquiry is therefore grounded in the literature. Their sample was somewhat small, though this was compensated for by large effects scores. In the qualitative phase of the study only five of the twenty-six participants were interviewed regarding their choices of media and useful factors impacting online collaborative study. It may have been helpful to gather perspectives from more if not all of the participants.

Smith’s (2008) socioculturalist perspective led her to investigate trust and group collaboration. The study indicated that trust was a complex, pervasive, and significant issue in online collaborative learning. The study of 47 adult post graduate learners incorporated robust data collection methods that featured triangulation of data sources to enhance validity. However, since 90% of the participants had never taken an online class, the sample may have limited the generalizability of the study. The large proportion of novice online participants might make the conclusions less relevant to learners who may have had prior experience with online collaborative learning.

The study by Chang (2008) examined the relationship between online discussions, a type of communication media for online collaborative learning, and the quality of project artifacts. The methods applied were exhaustive and focused attention on several pertinent factors. However, the study did not consider participants’ starting level of proficiency in the subject area utilized in the study, though statements were made about the performance of participants by the end of the study. Also, there were no measures included that could have been used to justify judgments about artifacts’ quality.

Thompson and Heng-Yu (2010) also reported on the quality of online collaborative artifacts. They considered this in relation to the degree of online collaboration. The criteria they used to judge the degree of online collaboration was derived from the literature surrounding this topic. There were some aspects of the sample that may raise concerns about the generalizability of the study. The sample was comprised entirely of women. Also, the groups involved in the exercise were numerically uneven. These group characteristics could have affected the degree of collaboration as well as the quality of the artifacts.

Media and its role in the conduct of online collaborative learning is an important aspect of the success of online collaborative learning. Due to the remoteness of participants in online collaboration, media is critical in providing clarity of meaning and connections among learners. Successful online collaboration requires that the appropriate media be used in specific cases. “Selected media differed based on its media richness and ability to convey social presence” (Havard, Du, and Xu, 2008, p. 43). When media is used effectively in online collaborative learning it supports such team members’ learning. Tseng, Wang, Heng-Yu, and Sun (2009) found that the “strongest relationship was found between clear communication and team satisfaction” (p. 203). The use of media also impacts the quality of artifacts produced in online collaborative learning. Chang (2008) stated with respect to one of the groups, “the content and frequency of online discussions had a positive correlation with its PBL work” (p. 497).

Trust among team members is another aspect of successful online collaboration. Online collaborative learning requires that team members share a common goal and depend on each other to accomplish this goal. As Tseng, Wang, Heng-Yu, and Sun (2009) noted, “Teams that trust feel that they are working towards the same goal and make their best efforts” (p. 197). A lack of trust may hinder sharing among team members and hurt the goal of collaborative learning. Trust is also a significant aspect of online collaborative learning because it can be pervasive and difficult to resolve. Smith (2008) discovered that “trust issues were consistent throughout group life” (p. 334). Understanding trust in online collaborative group settings is therefore critical to providing an encouraging learning atmosphere. In his study, Chang (2008) concluded in terms of students’ use of a general discussion board, there was a lack of trust which negatively impacted collaboration. The importance of trust also relates to the critical role of media and communication. As Chang noted, students’ lack of trust caused them to share thoughts on a general discussion board for fear of having ideas stolen. This mode of communication did not foster trust. Havard, Du, and Xu (2008) stated that online collaborative learning students “may never meet one another face-to-face.” They therefore postulated that trust and the choice of communication media are important considerations in promoting online collaborative learning. Trust fosters interdependence, and Thompson and Heng-Yu (2010) found that online collaborative teams with a level of interdependence produced high quality artifacts.

Apart from media and trust, the instructor’s role is another important factor impacting successful online collaborative learning. Havard, Du, and Xu (2008) found that “the instructor’s role is critical in designing the environment that supports and a course that encourages online collaboration” (p. 45). In their study, Tseng, Wang, Heng-Yu, and Sun (2009) seemed to find contradictory results. They found that there was not “strong support for the relationship between facilitator’s support and teamwork satisfaction” (p. 203). However, the researchers’ view of facilitator support included providing “information and resources” (103). Tseng, Wang, Heng-Yu, and Sun acknowledge the importance of structure in an online course. Such structure is a consequence of design, which the researchers identify as key factors in successful online collaboration.

The literature identifies media appropriateness, trust, and the role of the instructor in designing an encouraging online learning atmosphere as key factors impacting the success of online collaborative learning. However, within the studies there were some findings that suggested additional research may be necessary. In the study by Chang (2008), one group that did not demonstrate significant interaction produced high quality collaborative artifacts. Perhaps there should also be a focus on the design of courses and the required assessments of knowledge that are part of online collaborative learning. In addition, the literature is filled with studies investigating online collaborative learning among adults in masters and baccalaureate programs. Collaborative learning is also practiced within the K-12 environment. Considering the complex nature of the findings concerning online collaborative learning and adults, it may be reasonable to assume that special consideration and additional research be devoted to investigating online collaborative learning among younger learners. These learners are not as experienced as older learners and may have special needs.

References

Chi-Cheng, C. (2008). A case study on the relationships between participation in online discussion and achievement of project work. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 17, 477-509.

Havard, B., Du, J., and Xu, J. (2008). Online collaborative learning and communication media. Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 19 (1), 37-50.

Satwicz, T. and Stevens, R. (2008). A distributed perspective on collaborative activity. In J., M. Spector, M., D. Merrill, J. van Merrienboer, M., P. Driscoll (Eds.), Handbook of research on educational communication and technology (pp. 21-28). New York: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Smith, R. (2008). The paradox of trust in online collaborative groups. Distance Education, 29 (3), 325-340.

Thompson, L. and Heng-Yu, K. (2010). Degree of online collaboration and team performance: A case study. The Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 11 (2), 127-134.

Tseng, H., Wang, C., Heng-Yu, K., and Sun, L. (2009). Key factors in online collaboration and their relationship to teamwork satisfaction. The Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 10 (2), 195-206.

Woolfolk, A. (2007). Educational psychology (10^th ed.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

No Comments »
Filed under: Online Collaborative Learning, Principles Distance Education

Running head: DIFFERENTIATION

A Model for Differentiation and E-Learning: A UDL Approach

Gregory Sucre

gsucre.edublogs.org

June 4, 2010

A Model for Differentiation and E-Learning: A UDL Approach

Differentiation is an approach to teaching and learning based on the idea that each student has a unique path to learning. Such a unique path necessitates a flexible teaching strategy that addresses the needs of individuals, not segments or groups. Tomlinson (1999) described teachers as “diagnosticians” and “artists” (p. 2) as they attempt to determine a student’s ideal pathway to success and create an engaging learning experience that addresses that student’s needs. Tomlinson also asserted that teachers often instinctively differentiate instruction.

Tomlinson (1999) noted that an approach to differentiation requires action on three fronts – content, process, and product. Process and product are strongly influenced by a student’s readiness, interest, and learning profile. An understanding of a student’s learning style and intelligences is therefore an important component when designing that student’s unique pathway to success. As teachers attempt to systematically design unique learning pathways to success for individual students, a framework for such design would be useful. A universal design for learning approach can help teachers focus on the steps needed to follow in order to differentiate teaching and learning for multiple students.

Differentiation in e-learning offers the same benefits as differentiation in face-to-face settings. It refers to the same ideas in e-learning as it does in face-to-face settings (Salise 2007, p. 170). However, the tools available for e-learning provide online teachers with capabilities that their counterparts in face-to-face settings do not have. It is worthwhile, therefore, to study how a universal design for learning approach can help online teachers bring together learning style theory and multiple intelligence theory in an effort to differentiate teaching and learning in the online environment.

Differentiation

Effective differentiation focuses on modification of content, process, and product. Dividing the curriculum in this fashion helps to ensure that the entire learning experience fits the student’s needs. It also acknowledges that learning does not begin and end with teacher led instruction followed by assessment.

Content

Standards. Modification of content must be guided by standards and learning objectives. Learning objectives for individual students must align with standards so that teachers can be certain that students are receiving an equitable learning opportunity, if not an identical one. It is helpful to define learning objectives in broad terms to match the standards. However, individual tasks should incrementally address learning objectives in order to move students toward meeting standards. These small tasks are then easier to modify for individual students, while also providing an essential link to standards.

Access. Access to the content is also a critical aspect of content modification. Ensuring access to the content levels the playing field for individual students and helps students acquire knowledge that would otherwise have eluded them. In the online environment, it is possible to provide modifications that are not easily reproduced in the face-to face environment. Online access also presents unique challenges

The online environment allows teachers to provide content that can be accessed through different modalities. Instructional videos provide content that leverage auditory and visual senses. Students hindered by language barriers may still acquire standards aligned content when teachers create and use instructional videos designed specifically for online courses. Screen readers are other tools online teachers can use to allow their students the freedom to conduct online research without being hindered by language barriers. Text versions of the content provided in instructional videos should also be made available to allow students choice. All content should vary in level of complexity in keeping with standards to ensure that all learners have access to the content on their terms.

E-learning requires a virtual, structured environment where content will be housed and deployed. Optimizing the layout of the learning management system and the folder structure of individual courses user friendly are challenges that online teachers must face in order to facilitate accessibility of content. A course or learning management system layout can hinder access to content by making the elements necessary for content access dependent on a certain level of language proficiency. Unnecessary scrolling and excessive embedding of folders are also factors that can hinder access to content. Learning objects will not be useful to students unless they can be easily found and directions for their use are easy to follow and accessible to all.

Cavanaugh and Blomeyer (2007) discussed some concerns that should be addressed when designing the layout of a course or program to ensure accessibility of content. These concerns included avoiding the use of tables that screen readers may not be able to decipher and utilizing easily read fonts. Including audio files to guide learners through the required activities is another strategy that can be used to make content more accessible.

Process and Product

Tomlinson (1999) tightly links instruction and assessment. These two aspects of teaching and learning are so tightly wound that researchers often discuss assessment for learning as well as assessment of learning. Assessment of learning is the traditional sense of assessment. It refers to the capture of a student’s standing with respect to the content at any point in time. Assessment for learning is more fluid. This idea suggests that students can learn even when engaged in assessment activities. In the online environment, a threaded discussion can be a form of assessment of learning. Undoubtedly, students may learn a lot during the course of the discussion because, unlike the usual face-to-face classroom discourse, threaded discussions are more reflective and therefore make it possible for deeper understanding and questioning to take place.

Some students may benefit greatly from participation in a threaded discussion. However, there are those whose learning profile or personality may not allow them to take advantage of that opportunity. Given that instruction and assessment are tightly linked, the process of instruction, as well as the artifact produced by students, must cater to students’ needs. E-learning offers some useful tools for effecting the differentiation of process and product.

LMS. The learning management system is an effective means for facilitating differentiation of process and product. The LMS can be used to provide diverse ways for students to engage content through the use of special folders and paths to different learning opportunities. Each opportunity can be distinct and cater to different learners. Various paths and folders provide choice and allow different learners to chart unique, personalized paths to success by selecting different points where they engage the content. Multiple opportunities for demonstration of mastery through authentic assessment choices provide even more choice and diversity of learning experience. Scalise (2007) discussed five categories of differentiation of process and product that span a range of input by instructor, student, and computer logic in determining which learning path to follow. Each category describes a different emphasis on who or what determines the exact path to learning success. Regardless of whether the direction is teacher, student, or computer guided, the LMS makes diversity and choice more readily available and promotes a different learning experience for each learner.

It is clear, therefore, that differentiation means more choice and unique learning experiences for different learners. E-learning offers some distinct advantages that make differentiation easier. Content can be differentiated by facilitating access to learning objects. Screen readers, text files, audio-visual learning objects, and attention to best practices for designing web spaces can help all learners gain access to the content. Process and product can be differentiated by linking instruction and assessment. Leveraging the power of the LMS to create multiple paths to learning success is another way to provide distinct learning opportunities for diverse learners. However, how does one actually go about designing a differentiated online learning opportunity? What considerations go into creating a differentiated online learning experience?

Styles and Intelligences

Learners differ in terms of readiness as well as specific learning styles and preferred intelligences. Catering to different learning styles and intelligences can help instructors differentiate learning in their classrooms. Differentiation occurs by diversifying content, process, and product. Learning styles and intelligences can inform instructors’ efforts when designing learning opportunities for their students.

Learning Styles

Silver, Strong, and Perini (2000) explained that learning styles define how individuals perceive the world. They discussed the mastery style, interpersonal style, understanding style, and self-expressive style and demonstrated that each was a different approach to processing stimuli. As instructors attempt to differentiate content, they must cater to different styles of learners to ensure that a unique path to learning success is available.

In the online environment a mastery learner may prefer text based specific instructions that accompany each activity, objective questions with instant feedback, and a clearer distinction between assessment for learning and assessment of learning. The interpersonal learner may prefer that content be related to personal experiences. Instead of a text based description of the industrial revolution, a document that includes active, authentic photographs of an industrial age city may be more appealing. The understanding style learner may desire more than straightforward text based directions. Such a learner may desire the opportunity to extrapolate upon clues to uncover the content. The self-expressive learner may prefer that content be delivered as a puzzle to be solved. Such learners may wish to put their stamp of creativity on the content.

Learning styles can certainly inform instructors’ design of learning objects and the way they present content. However, differentiation requires that attention be paid to process and product as well.

Multiple Intelligences

Silver, Strong, and Perini (2000) examined multiple intelligences from a critical-thinking disposition perspective. They acknowledged that intelligences can be viewed as tendencies and preferred ways to process information. There are eight intelligences that describe how learners prefer to engage content. These intelligences are: verbal-linguistic, logical-mathematical, spatial, bodily-kinesthetic, musical, interpersonal, intrapersonal, and naturalist. Traditionally, these intelligences have been used to help instructors differentiate process and product. In the online environment, the power of digital technologies must be fully exploited to allow students the opportunity to engage the content through their preferred intelligence. That does not mean, however, that students should only engage content in their native intelligence.

In the online environment, the verbal-linguistic learner may enjoy presenting his or her ideas in the form of a written paper, threaded discussion, or blog. The logical-mathematical learner may prefer to present his or her ideas in the form of a graph, cause and effect diagram, or table. The spatial learner may prefer to demonstrate his or her learning through graphs, charts, or artwork. The bodily-kinesthetic learner may prefer to demonstrate learning through some physical activity such as the creation of a model or exercise routine. Such an artifact can be uploaded into a LMS as a video or image file. The musical learner may prefer to demonstrate his or her learning in the form of a song, lyrics to a song, or a medley of songs. The interpersonal learner may do well in online collaborative assessments. The intrapersonal learner may wish to focus his or her demonstration in the form of a blog or personal web page. The naturalist learner may wish to couch his or her artifacts in terms relative to the natural world.

Learning styles and multiple intelligences are both useful to instructors wishing to differentiate teaching and learning. As they tend to describe different parts of the curriculum, content and process and product, they can be used to differentiate different aspects of an instructor’s design of a path to learning success. A framework for combining these two powerful theories is therefore needed to facilitate their use.

Universal Design for Learning

Universal design for learning provides a road map for designing differentiated teaching and learning opportunities. Engelman (2007) stated that UDL provides the means to incorporate differentiation before a course is developed (p. 4). It is therefore a good place to start when attempting to design differentiated online learning opportunities.

Universal design for learning proposes diversity in the way content is represented, freedom in the way students express their knowledge, and variety in the way students can engage with the course. As instructors incorporate these characteristics of their course’s design, they in fact differentiate content, process, and product.

Figure 1. UDL Model for Differentiation in E-learning

Design Inputs

Instructors must begin with design inputs. These inputs are standards and learners. Standards are an important input because they provide validity and accountability. Differentiation seeks to provide successful learning opportunities for diverse learners. Success must be partially defined by the framework of standards. Standards will testify to what students have learned and so provide a level of equivalence in the diverse experiences of various learners. While standards will be the fixed construct, learners will vary. Learners will be the other critical input in the design of differentiated online learning. The learner input will be guided by the theories of multiple intelligences and learning styles. Silver, Strong, and Perini (2000) have created a styles/intelligences matrix that merges the elements of both theories. The elements of learning styles and multiple intelligences are combined into a menu of activities that would appeal to various learners. Users of Silver et al.’s work will find this very helpful as they brainstorm activities that would appeal to different learners.

Design Outputs

Content

Armed with standards and a blending of the theories of learning styles and multiple intelligences, instructors can now approach the differentiation of content, process, and product. In order to address the needs of an instructors own student body, he or she must be aware of the student’s learning profiles. Creating or utilizing a learning styles or multiple intelligences survey can help instructors get an idea of the needs of their students before the course has progressed too far. The results of such a survey can be aligned with the styles/intelligence matrix to ensure that appropriate learning opportunities are available for every student. The development of rubrics before assessments are created can help to ensure that learning objects deliver the instruction required to meet the standards. In other words, the rubrics can be used to inform the insert creation of supplemental or additional learning objects, just as they are used to inform the creation of assessments. Rubrics can be a teaching, assessment, and design tool.

Process

The purpose of differentiation is not to handicap students and separate them from other approaches to learning. Students native to specific styles and intelligences must come to appreciate other aspects of learning as they become lifelong learners. As students strive to master their own learning profiles, a useful tool would be a cognitive strategies folder. Engelman (2007) noted that students’ performance improve when they understand their own learning style and that of their colleagues. A cognitive strategies folder guides the learner with tips to study and learn material. What is unique about this type of folder is that it speaks to different learners in unique ways. A tip that encourages a strong bodily-kinesthetic intelligence student to recite state capitals while doing a dance or some form of exercise may not be as useful to a student with a verbal-linguistic intelligence. Such a folder helps learners discover how they learn best and provides a way for them to explore other approaches to learning.

Electronic study guides are another useful way to differentiate process. While these may not be style or intelligence specific, they help to identify important concepts that deserve focus. Students can then treat with them on their own terms. This is more important in the online environment for those students who are attuned to teachers’ body language to determine what is important and what is not. Instructors may also have their own way of pointing out what is an important piece of content. The remoteness of online learning will benefit from a conscious effort to highlight important aspects of the content.

Students in the online environment are physically cut off from their counterparts and instructors. When content is too vague and decontextualized, it prevents some students from engaging with the course. One strategy to differentiate instruction is to utilize realistic scenarios in instruction and assessment. Examples couched in what students may believe are relevant scenarios can help to anchor them to the content and the course. While it may not be possible to always present an example that appeals to every learner, making it appealing to some, engages all. Students see the content resonate with their colleagues and recognize that it is a real and useful concept. This causes them to expect that there will be instances when the content will resonate with them as well.

Product

One of the benefits of authentic assessment is the stimulation of higher order thinking. In the online environment, authentic assessment plays another critical role. Authentic assessment enhances student engagement. In an environment where it is easy for students to feel isolated, an effort to force a connection between the student and the content can help students to stay engaged with the course. In the online environment, this can be achieved by making discussions focus on real problems where the content is applied. Projects should also be grounded in reality while allowing students to apply their knowledge to a problem. Instructors can make use of authentic documents and artifacts available online to frame instruction and give learning objects a realistic and connected nature. If instruction is embedded with realistic content, authentic assessment will flow naturally.

Collaborative assessment is another important tool that instructors must use in the online environment. It promotes connectedness among learners. Group projects are widely used in the face-to-face environment. Some instructors are reluctant to use this tool in e-learning because of the difficulty involved in facilitating communication among students. It is this very difficulty of connection that makes collaborative assessment so important. Tools are available to facilitate collaboration in e-learning. Meeting and conferencing software used for live classes help instructors group students so that they can work collaboratively. Cloud computing is a new technology that allows geographically dispersed users to collaborate on one artifact.

Assessments that are either collaborative or authentic may provide some differentiation by appealing to different learning styles or intelligences. However, it is necessary to ensure that artifacts for assessment allow different types of expression. Each type of artifact can carry a different weight in the overall compilation of grades for a particular piece of content. Allowing different types of expression, however, gives diverse learners a chance to demonstrate their understanding in ways that they find most comfortable. Encouraging the production of artifacts in non-native styles or unfamiliar intelligences will help to stretch students’ abilities while not causing frustration because of a lack of opportunities to shine.

Conclusion

At every level of differentiation, standards and learners’ profiles must inform the design of the learning experience. For this reason it is critical to start the design process with an alignment of standards to possible tasks, and an alignment of tasks and activities to diverse learners’ profiles. This approach will give instructors the capability to design diverse differentiated learning opportunities before the course is created. Engelman (2007, p. 4) stated that the goal of universal design for learning is to provide “differentiation and flexibility before course development.”

Appendix

References

Cavanaugh, C. and Blomeyer, R. (2007). What works in k-12 online learning. ISTE, DC.

Engelman, M. (2007). Applying learning styles and personality preference information to Online teaching pedagogy. Journal of Interactive Instruction Development, 19 (3), 3-10.

Meyer, A. and Rose, D. (2000). Universal design for individual differences. Educational Leadership, November, 39-42.

Scalise, K. (2007). Differentiated e-learning: five approaches through instructional technology. International Journal of Learning Technology, 3 (2), 169-182.

Strong, H., Strong, R., Perini, M. (2000). So each may learn: integrating learning styles and multiple intelligences. ASCD, VA.

Tomlinson, C., A. (1999). The differentiated classroom: Responding to the needs of all learners. ASCD, VA.

No Comments »
Filed under: Differentiation in E-Learning

MindMapSucreG1

Moller (2008) stated that using static approaches and technologies appeals to many teachers because these approaches are familiar.  The tendency of many online instructors is to fall back on static approaches as a way to ensure that content is delivered.  They do not necessarily see their efforts as leveraging approaches and technologies that do not do a good job of delivering rich, interactive, reflective, knowledge building experiences.  Instead they think of it as making sure that the curriculum is covered.  This hearkens back to Dr. Simonson’s (Laureate, 2008) discussion about the equivalency of distance learning.  Online instructors judge their instructional activities based upon reflections on the face to face environment.  They try to incorporate what they know about teaching into their practice of online instruction.  Sometimes the result is teaching online instead of online teaching.  This is why Fahy (2008) may not be off the mark when he concluded that teaching experience is not as important a criterion as comfort with technology.  Comfort with the technology used in teaching online suggests an understanding of the strengths and weaknesses of such technology and the skill to emphasize one while minimizing the other.

Sometimes I am guilty of falling back on static approaches such as posting pdf instructions or notes sheets for my students.  For the most part, however, I attempt to utilize more reflective and interactive means of content generation.  Instead of presenting a PowerPoint presentation of a topic, I may create an interactive video that beckons the student to engage the content.  I also frequently use scenarios in my assessments.  I have found that despite the fact that the projects I assign are opportunities for demonstration of mastery, they are also good knowledge building opportunities.  Recently I assigned an assessment on the different types of weathering.  Instead of framing the question in a traditional essay format, I asked students to advise a town council on the proposed erection of s statue.  Students assessed the situation based upon what they knew and made recommendations.

This is merely an approach to crafting assessments.  What I need to do is evolve these problem based learning units into true simulations or games utilization technology.  Then I would be making use of dynamic approaches and technology to ensure that my students enjoying a rich learning environment.

Anderson, T. (Ed.) (2008).The theory and practice of online learning (2nd ed.). Edmonton, AB: Athabasca University Press.

Laureate education, Inc. (Executive Producer). (2008). Principles of distance education: Equivalency theory. [Motion Picture].Baltimore, MD: Laureate Education, Inc.

Moller, L. (2008). Static and dynamic technologies. Laureate Education

No Comments »
Filed under: Principles Distance Education

Siemens (Laureate, 2008) makes an important point when he states that traditional assessment is not realistic. The activities and behaviors that make up traditional assessment are often not closely related to the experiences learners have when they enter the world of work. Conversely, the validity of online collaborative learning and assessment can be found in the characteristics of authenticity and collaboration. Online collaborative learning and assessment are valid because they provide an opportunity for learners to work and be assessed in a manner closely related to the way in which they will be expected to function in the world of work. In his blog, Elliott (2008) calls online collaborative learner “highly valid” (p. 2) because of these characteristics. He also notes that online collaborative learning and assessment can suffer from some of the same barriers that afflict face to face group work.

The question of what should be assessed is one barrier to the effective implementation of online collaborative work. One of the benefits of online study is the ability to allow learners to follow individual paths to success. An online collaborative group is therefore likely to comprise diverse learners. Should online collaborative artifacts be assessed for mastery or progress? Should all learners be assessed in the same manner or according to their individual level of readiness? This barrier raises multiple issues. One issue is fairness. Siemens (Laureate, 2008) discussed the notion that a student who made significant progress should have that fact reflected in his assessment. I agree with that point to a certain extent. Assessments that tell whether a learner has memorized a list of facts do not tell much about what the learner has learned or is capable of doing as a result of this learning. Siemens makes this point also. That type of assessment may reward the learner who has memorized many facts but not really formed a deep understanding of the content, while it penalizes the learner who has made significant progress from a starting point but has not yet mastered the material. Assessment should be able to tell instructors about the learning state of the student. Online collaborative assessment should therefore recognize significant progress as well as mastery. However, from a standpoint of fairness and sound educational goals and objectives, online collaborative assessment should not be a way to accept progress in lieu of mastery.

Another barrier to online collaborative learning and assessment is the question of the procedures for judging the artifacts. Siemens (Laureate, 2008) identified several means for assessing online collaborative artifacts. Three of these are peer assessment, learning management system reports and instructor judgment. The two former methods are very good indicators of the frequency and quality of student participation. Learning management system reports can tell instructors about the student’s interaction with folders and learning objects within the interface. This can help the instructor get a picture of how the student approached a particular assignment. Peer evaluation, once guided by rubrics and rules for critiquing work, can reflect how well peers viewed a student’s participation. Instructor judgment adds to the validity of the assessment of online collaborative artifacts by ensuring that a certain level of content rigor is achieved. The combination of learning management system reports, instructor feedback, and peer feedback helps therefore provides the clearest picture of what a learner has learned. Palloff and Pratt (2005) referred to this when they stated that “collaborative activities are best assessed collaboratively” (p. 44).

Poorly designed online collaborative assessments are another barrier to effective online learning and assessment. Online collaborative artifacts should reflect the principles of authentic assessment. They should mirror the experiences that learners will face when they go out into the world of work. If this were so, learners would see these opportunities as a critical part of their education. Not participating in the production of online collaborative artifacts would be seen as similar to an architect not wishing to draw during his training. How will an architect practice his craft if he does not pay attention to so critical an aspect of his training? How will a learner function in the new collaborative world mentioned by both Siemens (2005) and Elliott (2008)? The results of Hurst’s and Thomas’ (2008) study indicated that the skills of teamwork, leadership, and communication can be enhanced through online collaborative activities. Online collaborative activities were very effective at teaching these skills. Collaborative activities should therefore be presented to learners as a critical part of the learning experience in the hope that they will choose to participate in these activities.

Reluctance to participate is another barrier to effective online collaborative learning and assessment. Palloff and Pratt (2005) offered four ways to address reluctance to participate in online collaborative activities. They suggested that instructors get students to accept the idea from the very beginning by persuading them that it is a worthwhile practice and encouraging them to provide some input as to the form of the collaboration. Instructors should also ensure that there is an opportunity for everyone to participate; restrain over enthusiastic participants and encourage reluctant ones. Technical difficulties should be remedied swiftly so that participants do not fall behind and feel left out. A means of conflict resolution should be available to students to address any conflict that may arise among students.

Hurst and Thomas (2008) also suggested measures to deal with reluctant participants. Their approach was a sociological one. They offered team building exercises such as encouraging members to agree on the rules of participation, ice breaker activities, and role specialization within small groups to foster interdependence as ways to encourage students to participate in online collaborative activities.

Elliottt, B. (2008). Online collaborative assessment. Retrieved from http://www.scribd.com/doc/9375123/Online-Collaborative-Assessment

Hurst, D., Thomas, J. (2008). Developing team skills and accomplishing team projects online. In T. Anderson. (Ed.), Theory and Practice of Online Learning (pp. 441-472). Edmonton: AU Press.

Laureate education, Inc. (Executive Producer). (2008). Principles of distance education: Assessment of collaborative learning. [Motion Picture].Baltimore, MD: Laureate Education, Inc.

Laureate education, Inc. (Executive Producer). (2008). Principles of distance education: Learning communities. [Motion Picture].Baltimore, MD: Laureate Education, Inc.

Palloff, R., Pratt, K. (2005). Collaborating Online: Learning Together in Community. SanFrancisco, CA: Josey-Bass

No Comments »
Filed under: Online Collaborative Learning, Principles Distance Education

Moller, Foshay, and Huet (2008) suggested in their three part article that distance education was growing rapidly and seemed set to continue expanding its reach.  In this regard they are in agreement with Dr. Simonson (Laureate Education, 2009) who seemed very confident that distance education was on the cusp of a rapid expansion.  Simonson likened the current state of distance education to being just short of the “critical mass” stage that E. M. Rogers identified as immediately preceding widespread acceptance of any innovation.  The difference between Moller et al.’s and Simonson’s treatment of the impending expansion of distance education is in the fact that Moller et al. seemed to sound a louder bell about the perils of poor quality distance education programs curtailing the hoped for and expected growth.  E. M. Rogers also identified, “discontinuance” as a stage in innovation adoption when an innovation falls out of favor and begins to lose support and shrink in its diffusion.  I agree with Moller et al. that distance education is threatened by the existence of poorly designed programs that may serve to hinder its growth.

Both Dr. Simonson (Laureate Education, 2009) and Moller et al. (2008) explained that one of the dangers facing distance education is the belief that strategies necessary for successful face to face instruction can be duplicated and adapted for Elearning.  In fact, Moller et al. clearly stated that distance education should provide what face to face instruction cannot.  They criticized the, “craft approach” p. 68 of some online instructors, which is to do what they are accustomed to and what they know works.  This, they said would lead to the under-utilization of distance education and a failure to meets its promise.   Dr. Simonson discussed a similar concept called equivalency.  Dr. Simonson stated that E-learning and traditional education cannot be equal, because there are variables involved that permanently alter the experience of the learner and teacher.  He did state, however, that both can achieve the same learning outcomes and called this propensity, equivalency.  He also called the idea that a face to face instructional strategy could be adapted and delivered digitally as an effective distance learning experience, a “fallacy”.  I strongly agree with these points.  I believe distance learning using digital technologies is nothing less than a new paradigm in education.  It requires new approaches, provides new solutions, and stimulates new questions.

One difference between Moller et al. (2008) and Simonson (Laureate Education, 2009) is in the treatment of the role of instructional design professionals.  Moller et al. stressed that instructional design professionals needed to play a leadership role in designing effective distance programs and evaluating their effectiveness.  While Simonson does not stress the role of instructional design professionals, he does stress the fact that distance programs need to be well designed in order to be successful.  I also agree with this point.  As with any new innovation, the novelty of distance education can result in improper implementation and disillusionment with poor results.  It is imperative that all professionals involved demand that the approach to distance education be defined, so that it can be clearly determined when organizations have not followed suggested guidelines in designing and offering their programs.  Change theorists like E. M. Rogers and Michael Fullan (2007) have identified uncertainty as a hindrance to effective change.  Distance education professionals must strive to remove the uncertainty surrounding effective E-learning strategies, if this new paradigm is to succeed.

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 (Part 3: K12). TechTrends, 52(5). 63-67

Fullan, M. (2007). The new meaning of educational change (4^th ed). New York: Teachers College Press

Laureate education, Inc. (Executive Producer). (2008). Principles of distance education: Equivalency theory. [Motion Picture].Baltimore, MD: Laureate Education, Inc.

Moller, L., Foshay, W., & Huett, J. (2008, May/June). The evolution of distance education: Implications for instructional design on the potential of the web (Part 1: Training and development). TechTrends, 52(3), 70-75.

Moller, L., Foshay, W., & Huett, J. (2008, May/June). The evolution of distance education: Implications for instructional design on the potential of the web (Part 2: Higher education). TechTrends, 52(4), 66-70

Rogers, E. M. (2003). Diffusion of innovations (5^th ed). New York: Free Press.

No Comments »
Filed under: Principles Distance Education