Enhancing and Assessing Abstract Thinking in Online Class Discussions:

1. Enhancing and Assessing Abstract Thinking in Online Class Discussions: • An Example from Deaf Education

2. What is the challenge?Demonstrate enhanced student learning in an online course. • How do we address it? • Backwards Planning: (Wiggins and McTighe, 2006) • Set a desired course goal. • Identify a tool that records “acceptable evidence.” (Wiggins et al 2006 p.9) • Design learning activities.

3. Definitions • Asynchronous Discussion Board: an effective online learning tool. • Source Materials: foundational assignments, readings and activities used as a basis for discussion. • Levels of Cognitive Activity: higher order cognitive prompts and responses as analyzed with a rubric based on Bloom’s Taxonomy.

4. Step1:Set a Course Goal

5. Course: Listening and Spoken Language Development for children who are deaf or hard of hearing. • Course Goal: • On asynchronous discussion board, students will demonstrate intellectual activity of an increasingly high order, leading to improved reflection on teaching skills and knowledge.

6. Asynchronous Discussion Board

7. Why assessAsynchronous Discussion Board ? • Asynchronous discussion board “encourages more time on task and promotes reflective interaction(Rovai, Ponton & Baker, 2008, p. 94).” • Reflective interaction is essential to enhancedcognition and metacognition(Lipman,2003).

8. Why assess Asynchronous Discussion Board ?, continued • Effective planning and management are required for higher order thinking to occur. (Hewett, 2003) • Cognitive performance is enhanced by task-oriented discussions. (McKeachie & Svinicki, 2006)

9. Examples of instructor best practice in Asynchronous Discussion Board: • Create a new forum for each topic. • Provide scaffolding and a rubric. • Monitor all interactions. • Maintain both social and content related presence in the discussion. • (Rovai, Ponton & Baker,2008)

10. Step 2:Identify a tool that records acceptable evidence

11. Analysis of Student Learning • Course Goal: On asynchronous discussion board, students will demonstrate intellectual activity of an increasingly high order, leading to improved reflection on teaching skills and knowledge.

12. The Rubric (See Handout)

13. Data Collection • Collect student posts • Sort posts by thread or source • Assign values to posts based on discussion board rubric • Sum the values for each post • Find the mean for the week

14. I had always thought that you could not use a cochlear implant and a hearing aid on the opposite ear due to one being electric and one acoustic. I had heard that this had the potential to cause a lot of feedback to the hearing aid.  Our text cites Ching, et al., saying that both devices can and should be used satisfactorily. Now that I know the two devices can be used simultaneously, it makes sense to me with the previous discussion in the text regarding bilateral hearing and the benefits a hard of hearing person could gain from bimodal usage. Collect student posts (See Handout)

15. I had always thought that you could not use a cochlear implant and a hearing aid on the opposite ear due to one being electric and one acoustic. I had heard that this had the potential to cause a lot of feedback to the hearing aid. (3b) Our text cites Ching, et al., saying that both devices can and should be used satisfactorily. (3e)Now that I know the two devices can be used simultaneously, it makes sense to me with the previous discussion in the text regarding bilateral hearing and the benefits a hard of hearing person could gain from bimodal usage.(4d) Assign values to posts based on rubric • 3b Gives a reason based on applied information. • 3e Applies reading to the forum question. • 4d Analyzes own thought processes.

16. Sum the values for each post • 3b Gives a reason based on applied information. • 3e Applies reading to the forum question. • 4d Analyzes own thought processes. 3 3 + 4 10

17. Step 3:Design learning activities

18. Asynchronous Discussion based onFoundational Assignments

19. Foundational Assignment

20. Prompt Type: Worked Example

21. Activity and Related Forum Thread • Activity:For each item on the sheet, identify the listening level, and then create a set of contrasting targets at the same level that would be easier for your child. Then create a set that would be harder foryour child. • Discussion Board Prompt:After you have completed the listening target activity, post one of your items here, and explain your reasoning for your changes. Why are the new items harder or easier?

22. Stimulus Thread: Worked Example • Worked Example: • Topic--gardeninsects. • Level--Pattern Perception • Easier:Butterfly, worm, spider • Reason:These garden bugs are very familiar in signed and spoken form and have contrastive vowels. They appear in pictures books and look very different. • Harder:Caterpillar, grub, earthworm • Reason:Names are less familiar, and contain multiple uses of /r/. The bugs are similar shapes.

23. Student Response:Worked Example

24. Asynchronous Discussionbased onReadings

25. Reading Assignment • Assigned readings for this week: • Chapters 11 and 12 in your text. • Narr, R.A.F. (2006). Teaching phonological awareness with deaf and hard of hearing students. Teaching Exceptional Children, 38(4) p.53-58.

26. Stimulus Thread: Reading Discussion • After reading Chapters 11 and 12 in your text,report honestly on a misconception you had about children with Cochlear Implants in typical environments and how your current belief has changed. What influences led to the change? • (For complete prompt, see handout) • Prompt Type: Analysis level question

27. Student Response:On line Conversation • (For the entire conversation, see handout.) • The instructor provides the prompt and then becomes part of the conversation. • Students interact with the instructor and with each other.

28. Asynchronous Discussion based onVideo Analysis

29. Therapy Video • Students watch a streamed recording of a listening/spoken language session.

30. Stimulus Thread: Viewing Practice • In the video for this week, you will see a skilled clinician introducing vocabulary that will be used later in the session. Here are some questions to practice answering: • What vocabulary is she introducing? Which items seem to be familiar? • How is she reinforcing the meaning? • What are her speech and listening targets? • Prompt Type: ApplicationQuestion

31. Student Responses:Observations and Examples • “She put the vocabulary into contrasting sentences: I can’t ____ vs. I can ____ For example: Can you eat a car? Can you eat a cookie?”

32. Student Responses:Observations and Examples • “She is using the sound targets of /k/ and /t/ in food and transportation words. He uses the sounds more consistently with food than transportation. Maybe the food is more familiar and takes less cognitive space.”

33. Final Step:Organize and display results

34. I am not exactly sure, but the text outlines that the benefits for the child could possibly make a difference in the learning and educational world.  This was suggested in the section where it talked about "saving" the other ear for future technology breakthroughs. (2f) We already know that so much of what we know and learn is through audible sources and that even a child with a mild hearing loss may miss out.  Given that, I may be more inclined as a parent of a child who has a cochlear implant to go with both ears being implanted.  As an adult, my "need" for hearing may differ from that of a child.(4e)Presently I function "pretty well" and am aware of what adaptations I may need to do for myself due to my hearing loss. (i.e. make phone calls with the t.v. off, look at the speaker for visual cues to what I might miss hearing, continue to use closed captioning for t.v.).  A child may not know how to access what he/she misses. (3a) • 2f Guesses with support but recognizes as a guess • 4e Compares and contrasts • 3a Personal application 2 4 3 9

35. Tally Data

36. Readings Foundational Activities Video Mean Scores by Type of Stimulus

37. Represent high order thinking

38. Summary • Step One: Set a Course Goal • Example: On asynchronous discussion board, students will demonstrate intellectual activity of an increasingly high order, leading to improved reflection on teaching skills and knowledge.

39. Summary • Step 2: Identify a tool that records acceptable evidence: • Example: Using a rubric based on Bloom’s Taxonomy, collect and code asynchronous discussion board entries as data.

40. Summary • Step 3: Design learning activities • Foundational Activities • Readings • Video Analysis

41. Summary • Analyze the data: • Example: Organize coded student posts to demonstrate any changes in higher order intellectual activity over the semester.

42. What trends did we see? • The level of higher order thinking in activities and instructor prompts seemed to be correlated to student responses. • Different types of stimulus materials resulted in different levels of cognitive activity.

43. What happens next? • An IRB approved study is currently underway to obtain data under rigorous conditions. • Independent research assistants will code instructor prompts and student responses for each stimulus type. • Higher order thinking data will be analyzed to observe correlations among instructor prompts, stimulus types, and student responses.

44. What can we do with the results? The instructor can monitor the effectiveness of his/her own discussion board participation. The instructor can monitor the effectiveness of chosen prompts, responses and activities. The instructor can monitor the progress of an individual student as needed.

45. Questions?Discussion?

46. References • Bloom, B. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives, handbook 1: The cognitive domain. New York: David McKay Co. Inc. • Hewitt, J. (2003). How habitual online practices affect the development of asynchronous discussion threads. Journal of Educational Computing Research, (28), 31-45. • Lipman, M. (2003). Thinking in Education (2nd ed.). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. • McKeachie W. J. & Svinicki,M. (2006). McKeachie’s teaching tips: Strategies, research and theory for college and university teachers (12th ed.). Boston: Houghton Mifflin. • Rovai, A.P., Ponton, M.K. & Baker, J.D. (2008). Distance learning in higher education:A programmatic approach to planning, design, instruction, evaluation and accreditation. New York: Teacher’s College Press. • Wiggins, G.P. & Tighe, J. (2006). Understanding by Design (2nd Ed). Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.