Computer-Supported Intentional Learning Experiences and Cooperative Learning In Higher Education: A Web based

1
Computer-Supported Intentional Learning
Experiences and Cooperative Learning In Higher
EducationA Web based Chat Room.

• Lawrence W. Sherman, Ph D.
• Department of Educational Psychology
• School of Education, Health and Science
• Miami University, Oxford, Ohio USA
• IASCE BOARD MEMBER
• http//www.users.muohio.edu/shermalw
• A presentation to the
• IASCE/JASCE INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE,
• JUNE, 2008
• NAGOYA, JAPAN

2
Abstract of Session

• This experiential session will provide hands-on
  activities utilizing an asynchronius web-based
  chat room environment. Cooperative learning
  will be emphasized in all activities, especially
  positive interdependence in distance
  communication. Software will be distributed to
  participants.

3
I have provided an On-Line-Discussion site for
participants of this session. It is available at
the following address
4
Introductions

• Introduce myself
• Introduce participants to each other
• Do Circles of Learning to build community
• Simulate an On-Line_Discussion
• Demonstrate Program
• Questions and answers

5
Five Basic Elements of Cooperative Learning

• Positive Interdependence
• Individual Accountability
• Face To Face Interactions
• Heterogeneous Grouping
• Social Skills

6
Some examples of pages from the On-Line
Discussion sites
7
(No Transcript)
8
(No Transcript)
9
(No Transcript)
10
(No Transcript)
11
A Simulated example of the On-Line_Discussion
Site

• The Link here

12
Some Examples of student comments from their
e-portfolios concerning the On-Line-Discussions
13
Netpost Reflections

• Over the course of this semester, we have
  completed a reflection and reaction every week.
  They have been based on what we learned in class
  and I have found them to be very beneficial.
  They have challenged my mind and I have greatly
  enjoyed what my peers have had to say about each
  prompt. We have completed ten of these
  reflections and they are included in the next
  pages. You can also get to them by clicking on
  the following numbers 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6,
  7, 8, 9, 10.

14
Netpost Reflections

• I believe that this is an invaluable aspect of
  the class and should be implemented more in other
  classroom settings. By requiring students to
  personally respond to what they are learning
  about in class, it forces the students to
  critically think about the concept and put it
  into their own words, furthering their
  understanding of the concept. Additionally, it
  allows students to view one another's thoughts
  and ideas. This type of assignment could be
  given in any content area classroom. I can see
  myself using it in either my future math
  classroom or my future language arts classroom.

Return to Index
15
Reflections

• EDP 303 Section A Online Discussions
• I liked having a part of this class as
  reflections online. I felt it was beneficial to
  know other classmates thoughts on the concepts we
  have learned this semester. I also like how we
  could react to other students. I like the online
  discussion in that you gave us a topic but we
  were able to make it personal to us by showing
  how we can apply certain ideas in a classroom.

INDEX
16
Reflections Reactions

• Reflections Reactions were beneficial in
  allowing us to think outside of class over topics
  related to our discussion. Instead of having our
  own perspective we were able to see twenty-five
  others from our classmates. The only problem real
  that I had with reflections reactions was
  sometimes not having access to a computer over
  the weekend, which resulted in either not posting
  or a late post. Another problem was having to
  depend on Miamis server to be up continuously,
  which is a rarity. I can remember at least once
  when the entire internet on campus was down, and
  others when the server was down. However, I
  thought this was an excellent method to encourage
  outside thinking.
• Return to index

17
Ten Pitfalls to Avoid

• The pitfalls follow

18
Web Discussion Pitfall 1 Too much information

• Problem.
• Teachers fail to organize conversations,
  participants become confused.
• Solution.
• Plan and streamline course discussions. Plot the
  duration and focus of discussion threads. Have
  students take turns running discussions about
  course content

19
Web Discussion Pitfall 2 Students
technologically handicapped

• Problem.
• Students are easily stumped by online tasks
• Cutting and pasting text on the Web sometimes
  they lack Web expertise, misunderstand directions
  or are unsure whats expected of them.
• Solution.
• Structure online activity. Provide guidelines for
  posting and pasting material, how often to
  comment, length of comments and what to say to
  them.

20
Web Discussion Pitfall 3Unjustified comments.

• Problem.
• Students comments lack justification. They often
  make assertions without provident evidence.
• Solution.
• Model ways to support arguments. In your own
  postings, cite research studies or theories to
  back up your comments.

21
Web Discussion Pitfall 4Making course content
connections

• Problem.
• Students seldom connect their online comments to
  specific course concepts because they dont
  realize theyre expected to, and they tend to
  speak anecdotally. Comments are often unrelated
  to course readings, theories or research topics
  discussed in class.
• Solution.
• Frame questions in terms of concepts. When
  posting a question for students, ask them to
  answer it using specifics from course readings

22
Web Discussion Pitfall 5Being too nice on the
Web

• Problem.
• Students are too nice on the Web. Perhaps
  because students also see each other regularly
  face-to-face, and because their comments are
  recorded online, many hesitate to criticize.
• Solution.
• Encourage role-playing. Assign students to play
  out roles of devils advocate, pessimist, or
  optimist, to help them take different sides and
  spur debate.

23
Web Discussion Pitfall 6Camaraderie lacking

• Problem.
• Peer camaraderie is lacking. Students tend not
  to reach out to each other online as fully as
  they do face-to-face.
• Solution.
• Assign online buddies. Pair up students to help
  each other troubleshoot software problems and
  respond to one anothers questions about course
  content.

24
Web Discussion Pitfall 7Instructor preaching

• Problem.
• Instructors struggle to teach and not preach.
  Instructors easily fall into lecture mode,
  jeopardizing student interaction.
• Solution.
• Encourage students to initiate discussion topics.
  Require them to take turns running discussion
  threads about particular course readings.

25
Web Discussion Pitfall 8Forming communities of
learners

• Problem.
• Its difficult to form a community of learners
  online. Because students cant see each other,
  it takes time for them to build trust and speak
  freely.
• Solution.
• Encourage students to interact casually. Allot
  discussion threads or areas for hanging out and
  personal introductions.

26
Web Discussion Pitfall 9

• Problem.
• Web postings are time consuming to grade.
  Students often post large amounts of text, making
  it hard for instructors to keep up.
• Solution.
• Award points according to set criteria. Give
  points for posting regularly, interacting
  concisely with others and showing deep thinking,
  rather than for generating lots of text.

27
Web Discussion Pitfall 10Technology glitches

• Problem.
• Computers crash. Students computers or Internet
  connections may malfunction, or glitches may
  plague online discussion software
• Solution.
• Troubleshoot. Check in regularly to see whether
  students need help using the discussion software
  or whether you need to call technology support
  personnel about more serious software problems.

28
Three additional techniquesAdding context to
messages

• Reconstructed turn-taking
• Repair
• Formulations

29
Reconstructed Turn-taking

• Students cut and paste lines from others
  messages, paste them into a new message and
  respond to them in turn.

30
Repair

• Students correct, clarify or reorient comments
  made by other students by saying, for example, I
  believe student X meant or Building on student
  Xs earlier comment They can also repair
  comments they themselves have made.

31
Formulations

• Students summarize and assess where the
  conversation is headed based on previous messages
  --- for example, someone might say, The tone of
  recent postings has changed, signifying a shift
  in the classs thinking Sometimes students
  suggest new directions or topic shifts starting a
  new thread

32
Some useful References

• Bonk, C. J. Cummings, J. A. (1998). A dozen
  recommendations for placing the student at the
  center of Web-based instruction. Educational
  Media International, 35(2), 82-89.
• Bonk, C. J. Dennen, V.P. (1999). Teaching on
  the Web With a little help from my pedagogical
  friends. Journal of Computing in Higher
  Education, 11(1), 3-28.
• Bonk, C., Wisher, R. Ji-Yeon, L. (2004).
  Moderating Learner-Centered E-Learning Problems
  and Solutions, Benefits and Implications. In Tim
  Roberts. (editor). (2004). Online collaborative
  learning electronic resource theory and
  practice. Hershey PA Information Science Pub.
• Bonk, C., Wisher, M. Nigrelli, M. (2004).
  Learning communities, communities of practice
  principles, technologies, and examples. In Karen
  Littleton, Dorothy Miell, and Dorothy Faulkner
  (editors), Learning to collaborate, collaborating
  to learn. Hauppauge, N.Y. Nova Science
  Publishers
• Brody, C., Baloche, L, Schmuck, R., Sherman,
  L. (2004). The past and future of cooperative
  learning perspectives from leaders in the IASCE.
  A panel session at the IASCE conference,
  Singapore, June, 2004.
• Hais, M. Winograd, M. (200). Millennial
  makeover MySpace, YouTube, and the future of
  American politics. New Brunswick, N.J. Rutgers
  University Press.
• Hall, R. (guest editor) (2000). The impact of the
  internet, multimedia and virtual reality on
  behavior and society. CyberPsychology and
  Behavior, 3(1), entire issue.
• Hara, N., Bonk, C. J. Angeli, C. (2000).
  Content analyses of online discussion in an
  applied educational psychology course.
  Instructional Science, 28(2), 115-152.
• Littleton, K., Miell, D. Faulkner, D.
  (editors). (2004). Learning to collaborate,
  collaborating to learn. Hauppauge, N.Y. Nova
  Science Publishers.
• Ludlow, P. Wallace, M. (2008). The virtual
  tabloid that witnessed the dawn of the metaverse.
  Boston, MA MIT Press.

33

• Murray, B. (2000). Reinventing class discussion
  online. APA Monitor on Psychology, April, 2000,
  54-56.
• Roberts, T. (editor). (2004). Online
  collaborative learning electronic resource
  theory and practice. Hershey PA Information
  Science Publishers.
• Sherman, L., McMahon-Klosterman, K., Meyer, S.,
  and Stephens, P. (1994). "Kids Can Make A
  Difference, Too!" A demonstration of an
  interagency Collaborative Project using
  Cooperative Learning and Telematiques. A
  presentation to the 8th International Conference
  of the International Association for the Study of
  Cooperation in Education (IASCE), Lewis Clark
  College, Portland, Oregon, 9-11 July, 1994.
• Sherman, L. W. (2000). Postmodern constructivist
  pedagogy for teaching and learning cooperatively
  on the web. CyberPsychology and Behavior, 3(1),
  51-58
• Sherman, L. W. (2001). Cooperative learning and
  computer-supported intentional learning
  experiences. In Learning and teaching on the
  world wide web, Christopher Wolfe (editor). New
  York Academic press, pp 113-130.
• Sherman, L. W. (2004). Computer-supported
  intentional learning experiences and cooperative
  learning the web based Chat Room. A
  presentation to the IASCE International
  Conference, June 21-24, 2004, Singapore.
• Sherman, L. W., Schmuck, R., Schmuck, P.
  (2006). Kurt Lewin's contribution to the theory
  and practice of education in the United States
  The importance of cooperative learning. In
  (Janusz Trempala, Albert Pepitone Bertram H.
  Raven, editors) Lewinian Psychology. Proceedings
  of the International Conference Kurt Lewin
  Contribution "to contemporary psychology".
  Bydgoszcz, Poland Kazimier Wielki University
  Press, p 191-207.
• Totilo, Stephen (2008). Playing Games, The
  Nation, June 2, 2008, vol 286, no. 21, pp25-30.
• WWWBOARD (1995) available from Matt's Script
  Archive at http//www.worldwidemart.com/scripts/ww
  wboard.shtml.

34
fINE

• THE END