Module 4: Strategies and Tools to Engage Learners

Technological tools are in the hands of today’s student all the time.  Kids walk around with cell phones, Ipods, Ipads, MP3 players, Notebooks, and the list goes on.  Capitalizing on this mobile technology can maximize the use of technology in today’s classroom.  

When we have a need for calculators in a project, I don’t drag the calculator basket out of the closet anymore.  Now, I just ask the students to pull out their phones.  They love the idea because it is both handy and familiar.  You can poll the class with PollDaddy or use Survey Monkey to collect data on any topic.  Students can use their mobile devices to scan QR codes to access data for further study.  Skype and other IM tools allow easy collaboration for group project work.  

There are limitations with some compatibility problems between formats.  The use of Flash on Apple devices is one example of this issue.  Instructors must always be cognizant of a student’s access to devices.  A student that does not have a mobile device should not feel left out or burdened to complete an assignment.  Having a series of alternatives available for checkout or library use can address this issue.  

The biggest advantage of technological devices right now is that the Digital Native student is comfortable and engaged in their use.  Educators need to acknowledge that phenomena and provide a link to the classroom.

Assessing Collaborative Learning

Educators are exploring more ways to adapt the existing classroom model to reflect the demands of today’s society.  Although our society prizes individualism, the workplace requires collaboration to produce a shared product.  This means that classroom work that focuses on individual achievement is not reflective of the demands of society today (Laureate Education, 2008b).  The functioning of a collaborative team in a face-to-face classroom or an online environment can provide many challenges for an instructor.  In a balanced, high functioning team, the process is transparent.  What does the instructor do when the team consists of diverse learners or when some team members are not participating? 

Assessment for collaborative work needs to reflect a change from existing assessment models.  In an individual assignment, the assessment can concentrate on a review of the final product.  This method fails to take into account some of the most valuable components of collaborative work, however.  For collaborative work, the assessment model must expand past evaluated the product to reviewing the process.  This assessment needs to be fair, direct, and reflect comprehensive student outcomes (Laureate Education, 2008a).  George Siemens proposes four parts for an assessment model in collaborative work.  This includes students assessing peers, students receiving feedback from the online community, educators assessing students based on their contributions to the team, and educators using metrics from the online management system (Laureate Education, 2008a).

There are many suggestions for how to achieve these goals in collaborative assessment.  Many people believe that collaborative assessment is the obvious approach needed for collaborative projects (Palloff & Pratt, 2005, p. 44).  This does not mean that individual effort within the team should be ignored.  One part of collaboration is learning to self-reflect demonstrating growth as an individual.  The instructor can help the student with this process through the use of portfolios and rubrics with clear expectations (Palloff & Pratt, 2005, p. 42).  The use of peer reviews can help students evaluate the functioning of the team.  When the team consists of varying skill levels, the instructor should have clear guidelines in the rubric to evaluate personal growth.  Since the object of the assessment is growth, the concept of fair and objective assessment controls the process. 

Even when group norms and clear expectations exist, there are situations when a student refuses to participate in the team.  Members of a group with a reluctant contributor can begin by encouraging the student and maintaining communication.  Ultimately, the responsibility for intervention with that student rests with the instructor, however.  Part of the group norms must include notification to the instructor when a student is not adequately participating in the project.  The instructor will need to conference with this student and attempt to determine what steps would help them engage in the collaboration.  Since developing collaborative skills is a fundamental skill, student evaluation should reflect individual growth in that area. 

Some resources for instructors that might help with collaborative work include:

The Carnegie Mellon website on the Whys and Hows of Assessment includes suggestions and guidelines for assessing group projects in educational setting.

http://www.cmu.edu/teaching/assessment/howto/assesslearning/groupWork.html

The Rochester Institute of Technology provides additional suggestions and options for assessment for online collaborative learning.

http://online.rit.edu/faculty/teaching_strategies/collaborative_learning/assessing.cfm

References

Laureate Education, Inc. (2008). Assessment of collaborative learning. Principles of Distance Education. Baltimore, MD: Author.

Laureate Education, Inc. (2008). Learning communities. Principles of Distance Education. Baltimore, MD: Author.

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

Third attempt at inserting slides for storyboard.  I have removed the formatting in case that is a problem.  Sorry for the unattractive display, but hopefully the information will be visible.

1.  Title shot:  Asynchronous versus Synchronous Communication

2.  Definition of Asynchronous Communication – communication that takes place without face to face – not same time and same place

3.  Examples of Asynchronous Communication – pictures and word bubbles for texting, you tube, blogs, wikis, discussion boards, Prezi, Glogster, books, email

4.  Advantages/Strengths of Asynchronous Communication – student centered, self paced, able to think, permanent record, sense of permanence, edit and change work, repetition of lessons, equal access, questions anytime

5.  Disadvantages/Weaknesses of Asynchronous Communication – limited personal interaction, difficult to monitor ethics and morals, expensive intro, requires tech skills, isolation

6.  Educational Implications – Differentiated instruction, individual instruction, repetition/individual pacing, remediation, acceleration, freedom of time and place for instruction

7.  Definition of Synchronous Communication – Communication that occurs at the same time and possibly at the same place

8.  Examples of Synchronous Communication – live sporting events, concerts, phone calls, video conferences, class lectures, oral story telling, cocktail parties, group meetings    

9.  Advantages/Strengths of Synchronous Communication – body language, non-verbal clues, brainstorming, extensive interaction, building of community

10. Disadvantages/Weaknesses of Synchronous Communication – no self-pacing, requirement of physical presence, travel/time zones, problems with technology, errors in presentation

11.  Implications for Education – access to education opportunities previously unavailable, life long learning, permanency of discussion elements

12.  Research Studies – Heirdsfield, Walker, Tambyah, Beutel

13.  Research Studies – Sherman, Crum, Beaty, 2010

14.  Research Studies – Koskinen, 2010 

15.  Research Studies – Speece, 2012

16.  Research Studies – Riordan & Murray, 2010 

17.  Research Studies – Murphy, Rodriguez-Manzanares, & Barbour, 2011

18.  Research implications for education – emphasis on course design, balancing customer demand with valid pedagogy, research on pedagogy adherence in online environments 

19.   Summary Comparison – asynchronous environment highly desirable for adult education; expands learning opportunities by providing equal access; more research for K-12 opportunities to expand student oriented learning

20.  References – APA references of research studies listed above 

 

 

File of storyboard - images corrupted since original posting.

Storyboard for video