April 14, 2006
Group Discussion in Online Courses
Group Discussion in Online Statistics Courses
By Michelle Everson, Department of Educational Psychology, University of Minnesota
Small group work is something we often struggle with in our MVCR courses. Some students question the value of group work. Some students do not like being dependent on group members to complete an assignment. Some students feel the assessment of group assignments is unfair.
Despite these obstacles, we continue to use group work in our online courses. According to Barbara Gross Davis, researchers report that, regardless of the subject matter, students working in small groups tend to learn more of what is taught and retain it longer than when the same content is presented in other instructional formats.
Michelle Everson, Department of Educational Psychology, University of Minnesota, has published a good case study of using small group work in an online course.
Everson has provides several suggestions for designing successful group work, inlcuding the following:
Create lecture notes based on the group discussions.Incorporate opportunities for students to brainstorm and apply what they are learning.
Provide ample time for students to complete group assignments.
Do not use peer-grading to assess each student's overall discussion grade.
Instructors should be visible in the group discussions, rather than be behind the scenes moderator role.
Posted by mlindema at 10:31 PM | Comments (0)
October 05, 2005
Concept Maps, Instructional Design, and Constructivism
I am currently taking two online courses in the Global Human Resources Department Program of the College of Education at University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.
In both of those courses, and in others I have taken in the HRE Online program , the instructors have assigned what I know as “Concept Map” assignments.
To see some examples of Concept Maps I have created for the HRE courses, click here, here, and here.
I really enjoy these types of activities. Creating a concept map appeals to my preference for Visual and Kinesthetic learning (i.e. learning by doing) and my visual-spatial orientation. The “maps” (i.e. diagrams) often help me understand structures and see relationships between the different elements in the map. This morning I was re-reading Chapter 1 of Instructional Design by Smith, P.L. and Ragan, T.J. (1993) came across the following diagram that uses circles to describe the relationships among terms associated with instruction:
To better understand the diagram, it is helpful to read Smith and Ragan’s definitions of Education, Instruction, Training, and Education:
Education = all those experiences in which people learn.
Instruction = the delivery of information and activities that facilitate learners' attainment of intended, specific learning goals. In other words, instruction is the conduct of activities that are focused on learners learning specific things.
Teaching = those learning experiences in which the instructional message is delivered by a human being - not a videotape, textbook, or computer program-but a live teacher.
Training = instructional experiences that are focused upon individuals acquiring very specific skills that they will normally apply almost immediately.
I am very interested in that little area of the diagram where teaching is outside of instruction.
Here is how Smith and Ragan describe that area of the diagram:
As Figure 1.1 shows, not all teaching is considered to be instruction. There are occasions in an educational environment in which a teacher does not focus learning experiences toward a specific learning goal. On these occasions, teachers may provide many learning activities, and during these activities learning goals may emerge, often from the learners themselves as they encounter the activities. For example, some preschool education falls within this category, such as instances in which learners are provided with a variety of manipulative materials that they can use to pursue many problems. These pursuits might lead to various learning outcomes, not all of which have been specifically anticipated by the teacher.
When I developed and taught the Instructional Design course for the Making the Virtual Classroom a reality program, I always had a difficult time seeing how Constructivism and ID could be compatible. I think this diagram helps me resolve some of the conflict I see between Instructional Design and constructivism as described Jonasson (1994):
"The conundrum that constructivism poses for instructional designers, however, is that if each individual is responsible for knowledge construction, how can we as designers determine and insure a common set of outcomes for leaning, as we have been taught to do?"
My interpretation of the diagram is that constructivist learning occurs in the portion of the teaching circle outside of instruction. Instructional Design, at least traditional Instructional Design, deals with the teaching and training that occurs within the Instruction circle. I do believe that a Constructivist approach can be affectively applied to training as well, so I have re-drawn the diagram to represent this:
Perhaps we need to develop a “Teaching Design Theory” that would include both the objectivist learning theory of ID and the tenets of Constructivism.
References:
Jonassen, D.H. (1994). Thinking technology: Toward a constructivist design model. Educational Technology, 34(4), 34-37.
Mergel B, (1998) Instructional Design and Learning Theory. Available: http://www.usask.ca/education/coursework/802papers/mergel/brenda.htm
Smith, P. L., & Ragan, T. J. (1993). Instructional design. New York: Macmillan. http://fleming0.flemingc.on.ca/lrc/bild/kwork/instru%7E1.htm
Posted by at 12:39 PM | Comments (1)
September 28, 2005
Questioning Strategies in Online Courses
I attended an interesting workshop yesterday titled “Questioning Strategies” offered by the Center for Teaching Excellence at UIUC. The presenters were David H. Curtis, Ph.D. and Ina Claire Gabler, Ph.D.; from Engaged Minds Professional Development.
Using Bloom’s taxonomy, or Bloom’s Revised Taxonomy, as a framework, Curtis and Gabler described a technique using questioning that stimulates learners to think critically and to express their thinking in dialogue. In a nutshell, the technique is based on sequencing different types of questions (what Curtis and Gabler refer to as Triggers, Probes, and Redirects) in Question Clusters to strengthen critical thinking skills. The Question Clusters focus on the various levels of Bloom's Taxonomy. For example, question clusters might help establish knowledge base, establish comprehension and application, or prompt for critical thinking.
In our workshop yesterday, Gabler and Curtis led the 20 or so participants in a discussion of this painting
The questions by the facilitator (Gabler) helped us establish base facts (e.g. what are the focal point of actions, what is the central figure), establish comprehension and application (e.g. what is the possible story in the scene), and engage in critical thinking (e.g. what are some symbolic interpretations of the scene). To wrap up, the facilitator revealed the painting’s title and asked us to compare our suggested titles with the artist’s title.
Can we use this didactic technique in an online course? Certainly, the activity can be successfully replicated in a Synchronous Learning Environment (SLE) like Elluminate. But one criticism I have of this activity, whether it is done face-to-face or online in a SLE, is that each individual student might not have sufficient time to think about the questions posed. Curtis mentioned yesterday how important it is to provide “wait time” after a question has been posed in order to allow for the “Ah Ha!” moment to occur. However, it is often difficult for the facilitator to allow sufficient wait time in a “live” environment – the dead space can be awkward and some students will offer their answers before other students have had time to formulate their own. But if we convert this activity into an asynchronous discussion, what could be completed in half-an-hour live might take a week in the threaded discussion board,
Gilly Salmon, in her book “e-tivities: the key to active online learning,” writes “As a rough rule of thumb, I’d suggest what might take half an hour with a group of 10 face to face might take one week elapsed time online, if each participant came back three times, read other people’s messages and posted three of his or her own.”
Salmon proposes a five-step model (Access and Motivation, Socialization, Information Exchange, Knowledge Construction, and Development) (See a Book Review)
I would like to try to an activity using a combination of asynchronous and synchronous tools, perhaps using asynchronous discussion board for the first three stages in Salmon’s model, and then using a synchronous discussion via Elluminate for the Questioning Strategies presented by Curtis and Gabler, and wrap up using both asynchronous and synchronous for Salmon’s stage 5 (Development).
Posted by at 01:35 PM | Comments (0)