Facilitating Asynchronous Discussion and Blended Learning

1. Facilitating Asynchronous Discussion and Blended Learning Curt Bonk, Professor, Indiana University cjbonk@indiana.edu http://php.indiana.edu/~cjbonk http://CourseShare.com

2. Blended Ideas • Take to lab for online group collaboration. • Take to computer lab for Web search. • Take to an electronic conference. • Put syllabus on the Web. • Create a class computer conference. • Require students sign up for a listserv. • Use e-mail minute papers & e-mail admin. • Have students do technology demos.

3. Blended Learning. Sample Synchronous and Asynchronous Activities (David Brown, Syllabus, January 2002, p. 23; October 2001, p. 18)

4. I. Ten Asynchronous Activities • Social Ice Breakers: 8 nouns, expectations, storytelling cartoon time, chat room buds, etc. • Learner-Content Interactions: challenges, animations, self-testing, double jeopardy quizzing • Scenario-Based Simulations • Starter-Wrapper Discussion • Anonymous Suggestion Box and Student Formative Surveys • Role Play: Assume the Persona of a Scholar • Case-Based Laboratories & Online Experiments • Authentic Data Analysis • Just-in-Time Teaching; Just-in-Time Syllabus • Perspective Taking: Foreign Languages, Field Experiences, etc.

5. 1. Social Ice Breakers a. Introductions: require not only that students introduce themselves, but also that they find and respond to two classmates who have something in common (Serves dual purpose of setting tone and having students learn to use the tool) b. Favorite Web Site: Have students post the URL of a favorite Web site or URL with personal information and explain why they choose that one.

6. 1. Social Ice Breakers c. Eight Nouns Activity: 1. Introduce self using 8 nouns 2. Explain why choose each noun 3. Comment on 1-2 peer postings d. Coffee House Expectations 1. Have everyone post 2-3 course expectations 2. Instructor summarizes and comments on how they might be met (or make public commitments of how they will fit into busy schedules!)

7. 2a. Learner-Content Interactions: Self-Testing

8. 2b. Learner-Content Interactions: Double-Jeopardy Quizzing Gordon McCray, Wake Forest University, Intro to Management of Info Systems • Students take objective quiz (no time limit and not graded) • Submit answer for evaluation • Instead of right or wrong response, the quiz returns a compelling probing question, insight, or conflicting perspective (i.e., a counterpoint) to force students to reconsider original responses • Students must commit to a response but can use reference materials • Correct answer and explanation are presented

9. 3. Scenario-Based Simulations

11. 4. Discussion: Starter-Wrapper (Hara, Bonk, & Angeli, 2000) • Starter reads ahead and starts discussion and others participate and wrapper summarizes what was discussed. • Start-wrapper with roles--same as #1 but include roles for debate (optimist, pessimist, devil's advocate). Alternative: Facilitator-Starter-Wrapper (Alexander, 2001) Instead of starting discussion, student acts as moderator or questioner to push student thinking and give feedback

12. 5. Formative FeedbackAnonymous Suggestion Box George Watson, Univ of Delaware, Electricity and Electronics for Engineers: • Students send anonymous course feedback (Web forms or email) • Submission box is password protected • Instructor decides how to respond • Then provide response and most or all of suggestion in online forum • It defuses difficult issues, airs instructor views, and justified actions publicly. • Caution: If you are disturbed by criticism, perhaps do not use.

13. 5. Formative Feedback: Survey Student Opinions (e.g., InfoPoll, SurveySolutions, Zoomerang, SurveyShare.com)

14. 5. Poll Students for Formative Feedback

15. 6. Role Play A. Assume Persona of Scholar • Enroll famous people in your course • Students assume voice of that person for one or more sessions • Enter debate topic or Respond to debate topic • Respond to rdg reflections of others or react to own

16. 7a. Online Co-Laborative Psych Experiments PsychExperiments (University of Mississippi) Contains 30 free psych experiments • Location independent • Convenient to instructors • Run experiments over large number of subjects • Can build on it over time • Cross-institutional Ken McGraw, Syllabus, November, 2001

17. 7b. Case-Based Learning: Student Cases • Model how to write a case • Practice answering cases. • Generate 2-3 cases during semester based on field experiences. • Link to the text material—relate to how how text author or instructor might solve. • Respond to 6-8 peer cases. • Summarize the discussion in their case. • Summarize discussion in a peer case. (Note: method akin to storytelling)

21. 8. Authentic Data Analysis: Wireless Technology

22. 9. Just-In-Time-Teaching Gregor Novak, IUPUI Physics Professor (teaches teamwork, collaboration, and effective communication): • Lectures are built around student answers to short quizzes that have an electronic due date just hours before class. • Instructor reads and summarizes responses before class and weaves them into discussion and changes the lecture as appropriate.

23. 10. Perspective Taking • Have students receive e-newsletters from a foreign magazine as well as respond to related questions. • Students assume roles of those in literature from that culture and participate in real-time chats using assumed identity. • Perspective sharing discussions: Have learners relate the course material to a real-life experience.

24. II. Types of Blended Synchronous Activities • Webinar, Webcast • Social Ice-Breakers: Know You Rooms • Synchronous Testing and Assessment • Sync Guests or Expert Forums • Threaded Discussion Plus Expert Chat • Moderated Online Team Meeting • Secret Coaches and Protégées • Collaborative Online Writing • Online Mentoring • Graphic Organizers in Whiteboard (e.g., Venn)

25. 1. Webinar

26. 2. Social Ice Breakers • KNOWU Rooms: • Create discussion forums or chat room topics for people with diff experiences (e.g., soccer parent, runner, pet lovers, like music, outdoor person). Find those with similar interests. • Complete eval form where list people in class and interests. Most names wins.

27. 3. Synchronous Testing & Assessment(Giving Exams in the Chat Room!, Janet Marta, NW Missouri State Univ, Syllabus, January 2002) • Post times when will be available for 30 minute slots, first come, first serve. • Give 10-12 big theoretical questions to study for. • Tell can skip one. • Assessment will be a dialogue. • Get them there 1-2 minutes early. • Have hit enter every 2-3 sentences. • Ask q’s, redirect, push for clarity, etc. • Covers about 3 questions in 30 minutes.

28. 4. Electronic Guests & Mentoring

29. 5. Threaded Discussion plus Expert Chat (e.g., Starter-Wrapper + Sync Guest Chat)

30. 6. Moderated Online Team Meeting

31. 7. Secret Coaches and Protégées • Input learner names into a Web site. • When learners arrive, it randomly assigns them a secret protégé for a meeting. • Tell them to monitor the work of their protégé but to avoid being obvious by giving feedback to several different people. • Give examples of comments. • At end of mtg, have protégées guess coaches. • Discuss how behavior could be used in other meetings.

32. 8. Collaborative Online Writing: Peer-to-Peer Document Collaboration

33. 9. Online Mentoring(e.g., GlobalEnglish)

34. 10. Graphic Organizers (e.g., Digital Whiteboards)

35. Web Facilitation???

36. Little or no feedback given Always authoritative Kept narrow focus of what was relevant Created tangential discussions, fact questions Only used “ultimate” deadlines Provided regular qual/quant feedback Participated as peer Allowed perspective sharing Tied discussion to grades, other tasks. Used incremental deadlines Poor Instructors Good Instructors

37. 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

38. Modeling • Instructor modeling increased the likelihood of student messages meeting quality and content expectations • Modeling was more effective than guidelines

39. 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

40. Facilitation (Dennen, 2001) • High instructor presence • 1:1 student-instructor message ratio created low peer interaction • Participant-like IP facilitated peer interaction • Instructor modeling increased student messages meeting quality and content expectations • Modeling was more effective than guidelines • Deadlines motivated participation • Deadlines inhibited dialogue

41. Facilitation (Dennen, 2001) • Participation was higher when students had a clear goal & extrinsic motivation to participate • Relevance has a positive effect on participation • Greater dialogue when shared perspectives • Fact-based q’ing strategies did not work well • Consistent, regular fdbk motivates students • Quantitative and qualitative guidelines

42. Facilitating Electronic Discussion • Have Students Initiate, Sign up for Roles • Provide Guidelines, Due Dates, and Structure • Weave and Summarize Weekly • Be patient, prompt, and clear • Foster Role Play, Debate, and Interaction • Constantly Monitor, Converse not Dictate • Extend Beyond Class with Peers/Practitioners

43. More on How to Facilitate... • Find common ref pt--mission, purpose, need • Guide to negotiate/co-construct meaning • Establish some common practices or rituals • Hold regularly scheduled events--chats, tours • Create opportunities to contribute/develop • Apply course to lived experiences • Keep simple, give choice, build respect & tension

44. Common Instructor Complaints • Students don’t participate • Students all participate at the last minute • Students post messages but don’t converse • Facilitation takes too much time • If they must be absent, the discussion dies off • Students are confused

45. 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

46. How would you respond? • Who invented ______? • Who was the most influential political figure of the 1990’s? • What were the 3 main points of the reading?

47. 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

48. 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

49. A 5-Stage Approach: Async • Initial topic or idea generation • Initial response • Respond to peers (can continue for as long as desired) • Wrap up questions • Reflect

50. 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.