Prophetic Musings for 2012

Are the Illuminati and Freemasons integrating a new world currency? One of the reasons that so many United States' ads are promising top dollar if you sell your gold and silver could be because it will soon be the only exchange...are the days of old returning when people will only be able to exchange services for services, or products for something needed? Reflect on what you're doing with your gold and silver, and other highly prized valuables...it has been reported that China holds 90% of the earth's rare minerals, the biggest stockpile in the world. Who holds the most wealth holds the greatest power.

What does the National Council of Churches have in common with the foundations we know as Rockefeller, Carnegie and Ford? Money.

So remembering always that the Lord Jesus Christ and His Father will always be in control and win, do not dismay about earthly problems. Do not be fooled by Jesus wantabees...the Lord already knows who they are, or who they will be. Pray.

Traditional versus e-Learning Lesson Planning

Abstract

Improvising the components (goals, materials, objects, assessment design, and the step-by-step teaching segments) for synchronous e-learning based upon the learning objectives from Face-to-Face (f2f) instruction requires much deliberation to ensure a new quality learning experience. Logistics and collaboration with peers both from the original school, and the school where the instructional unit will be broadcast are the greatest obstacles although recommendations to overcome these issues are addressed. Bernard, Abrami, Lou, and Borokhovski (2004) claim that the "use of computer-based instruction was found to help promote better achievement and attitude outcomes in synchronous distance education" (p. 38). An electronic Whiteboard contributes to the f2f to e-learning reformatting project, and successfully achieves an impactful e-learning environment for middle school students.

Introduction to Traditional versus e-Learning Lesson Planning

This paper's focus discusses a face-to-face (f2f) lesson plan for teaching middle school students about the importance of biodiversity, which means the range of organisms present in an ecological community. Other discussion includes the goals, materials, objects, and the step-by-step parts of the f2f instructional unit, and the unit's assessment tool. Furthermore, this paper presents discussion relative to conversion of the f2f activity to an online activity, which includes detail about the reformatting process, and explanation of why certain components were changed to ensure a successful conversion.

Background of a Biodiversity Lesson Plan used for a Traditional Face-to-Face Class

McCoy, McCoy, and Levey (2007) presented the activity described below to greater than 300 seventh and eighth-grade disadvantaged students in six seventh-grade and five eighth-grade classes at a middle school in Gainesville, Florida. McCoy (et al., 2007) found that "more than 95% of students preferred all of the images that illustrated high diversity, and that they did so even before they knew the purpose of the activity" (p. 476). The students who chose the most diverse images (Exhibit 1) "could not provide a specific reason they chose them other than they liked the images better or liked the images with more color" (McCoy, et al., 2007, p. 476). The students choosing the "less diverse images did so because of a preference for the order or structure of the images" (McCoy, et al., 2007, p. 476). Students replying "based on preference or fear of the unknown still appreciated the significance of preserving biodiversity" (McCoy, et al., 2007, p. 476).

Furthermore, students developed a concrete concept of the meaning of biodiversity, and correctly labeled the most diverse biodiversity images in the activity's Part 3, and most students correctly identified the more and less diverse habitats when seeing images not seen before (McCoy, McCoy, and Levey, 2007) . A conclusion of this lesson's activities was (1) that despite biophilia, most people have an inherent appreciation for biodiversity; and (2) that many economic, ethical, and social reasons exist that support a need to conserve biodiversity (McCoy, et al., 2007).

Outline of Traditional Class' Lesson Plan

McCoy, McCoy, and Levey (2007) used a seven-part PowerPoint presentation to: (1) illustrate to middle school students that they have an innate affinity for biodiversity, (2) introduce the concept of biodiversity, (3) discuss the
products and services received from nature, (4) discuss the causes of
biodiversity loss, and (5) explain the steps that can be taken to help
conserve biodiversity. (p. 473)

Goals

The goals as stated by McCoy, McCoy, and Levey (2007) were:

1. that students recognize their own value of biodiversity;
2. that conserving biodiversity is an ethical as well as economic matter;
3. that students gain a conceptual understanding of biodiversity; and,
4. that students recognize the far-reaching impacts of human-mediated loss
in biodiversity. (p. 476)

Objects

Interactive PowerPoint Presentation (instructor-led), and a traditional classroom.

Materials

Computer-connected overhead projector, Summary of National Science Education Standards for this Activity (Table 1), and Class Handouts replicating PowerPoint Slides (Figures 1 and 2).

Step-by-Step Procedures: The Instructional Activity

Part 1.

McCoy, McCoy, and Levey (2007) discuss Part 1 of the activity:
Show pairs of images (Figure 1) to the students for 10 seconds and ask
them to write down which image from each pair they prefer. If they ask
what you mean by "prefer," tell them that it's up to them to decide for
themselves; the less information you provide at this point, the better. Next
ask each student to provide one reason why he/she picked a particular
image. Beginning the activity in this way engages the students because
they are unsure what answers you are expecting and they are curious
as to why they are doing the activity. (p. 473 )

Part 2.

McCoy, McCoy, and Levey (2007) discuss Part 2 of the activity:
Have the students put their answers from Part 1 aside for a moment.
Next, using illustrations (Figure 2) discuss the meaning of
biodiversity (multiple types of living organisms) and that it has
different components. For example, genetic diversity may be
illustrated using different breeds of dogs. All the dogs pictured
are the same species (can breed with one another) but they are
genetically distinct. Species diversity may be illustrated by showing
three distinctly unique animals (e.g., a slug, squirrel, and tree frog). Lastly, ecosystem diversity can be illustrated with images of
different types of easily recognizable ecosystems (e.g., a coastal
habitat, rainforest, beaver pond or wetland) (Figure 2). (p. 474)

Part 3.

McCoy, McCoy, and Levey (2007) discuss Part 3 of the activity:
Show the students the same series of images as in Part 1, except
this time ask them to record which image illustrates higher
diversity (Figure 1). This exercise has a dual function. It allows
one to assess students' understanding of the concept of diversity
and it provides a springboard into discussion about the value of biodiversity. (p. 474)

Part 4.

McCoy, McCoy, and Levey (2007) discuss Part 4 of the activity:
Have students count the number of times that the image they preferred
during Part 1 was also the image illustrating higher diversity in Part 3.
Ask how many originally preferred the images that were also the most
diverse. Most students prefer the more diverse pictures. Why? This
provides an opportunity to discuss two of the core postulates of modern conservation biology: 1) "Diversity is good," and 2) "Biotic diversity
has intrinsic value". To highlight the first postulate, "Diversity is
good,"ask the students if they would like it if everyone dressed identically
and had the same hair cut. Or, what if there was only one music group? What
if all buildings/houses looked the same? Lead a discussion about whether
the students think their answers support the idea that humans are inherently attracted to diversity. To highlight the second postulate, "Biotic
diversity has intrinsic value," extend the discussion to an evaluation of
species diversity and whether natural diversity is good for our well-being
and for the well-being of nature (i.e., other organisms and ecosystems). For
example, what if there were no insects to pollinate flowers or no plants to
provide oxygen? This discussion will highlight that conserving biodiversity
is a matter of ethics (i.e., is good for the well-being of humankind) as
well as aesthetics, and that we have an innate preference for diversity.
This can be a springboard for discussing the importance of cultural
diversity as well. (p. 474).

Part 5.

McCoy, McCoy, and Levey (2007) discuss Part 5 of the activity:
Next lead a discussion about the practical value of biodiversity. Ask
students to think of things that they get from nature; write them on the
board. Supplement the students' list with services from nature that may
be new to students (e.g., providing clean air and water, pollination of food
crops, and medicines). Discuss whether we can get these things from
a source other than nature. An interesting extension would include an
examination of the economic costs of losing or replacing these "services."
This may allow teachers to incorporate mathematics into the lesson and
will highlight that in addition to the ethical and aesthetic value of
biodiversity, there is also economic value. (p. 475)

Part 6.

McCoy, McCoy, and Levey (2007) discuss Part 6 of the activity:
Discuss some of the causes of biodiversity loss. This discussion
may be supplemented with illustrations of slash-and-burn agriculture,
satellite photos of soil erosion, and photos of endangered and extinct
species of plants and animals. Special note should be given to those
extinct plants and animals that may have provided a service to humans.
For example, a recently extinct frog (the gastric brooding frog) brooded its
eggs in its stomach, which required that the frogs stop the secretion of
digestive acids. Many doctors and medical researchers were interested in
this ability because they believed it would provide important insights into
the medical treatment of humans who suffer from ulcers or other gastric
problems. However the species went extinct before it could be studied
(Semeyn, 2002). (p. 475)

Part 7.

McCoy, McCoy, and Levey (2007) discuss the final Part 7 activity:
Brainstorm with the class about ways that humans can help slow
or stop biodiversity loss. For example, recycling, voting, reducing
pollution, etc. Lastly, it is always nice to end on a positive note. End
the discussion with an example of a conservation success story, such as
the American bald eagle or the recent discovery of the Ivory-billed
Woodpecker (which was presumed extinct). Make sure students understand
that they can make a difference. (p. 475)

Assessment Tool

The Process Assessment (PA) given at the end of the activity was developed by MITs Teaching and Learning Laboratory (2011). The PA design demarcates the activity's milestones to be reached, activities to be undertaken, and products to be delivered based upon the Summary of National Science Education Standards for this activity (Table 1). The results from the Process Assessment given to each student post-activity will be compared to the pre-activity assessment results. The degree of difference between the Process Assessment and the pre-activity assessment is used to evaluate success. In the future, a peer evaluation and self-assessment will be added near the conclusion of Part 7. In the meantime, "attention to quality course design (will) take precedence over attention to the characteristics of media" (Bernard, Abrami, Lou, and Borokhovski, 2004, p. 38) and other supplemental but non-essential materials.

Reformatted e-Learning Lesson Plan: Biodiversity

The format of the converted class uses a blended learning structure. The blended structure is to be used until such time that the class structure can be completely based upon e-learning rather than a blended structure. There are seven parts to the instructional unit, which are scheduled to be presented over eight weeks.

Goals

The goals as stated by McCoy, McCoy, and Levey (2007) are to improve learning at the InnerCity School (ICS) by introducing e-learning so:

1. that students recognize their own value of biodiversity;
2. that conserving biodiversity is an ethical as well as economic matter;
3. that students gain a conceptual understanding of biodiversity; and,
4. that students recognize the far-reaching impacts of human-mediated loss
in biodiversity. (p. 476)

Objects

Electronic Whiteboard and accessories, and a traditional classroom.

Materials

Since the teaching activities occur on the Whiteboard, and each student's work will be recorded via the Whiteboard, there will be no handouts.

Step-by-Step Procedures: The Instructional Activity Reformatted

Part 1.

Teacher A and students log into the Whiteboard. Pre-training of the students and teacher included simulations of how the Biodiversity class' exercises and discussion would occur. The e-learning contents within the Whiteboard includes the same images used previously in the f2f class, which were generated by PowerPoint. Teacher A activates a pair of images (Figure 1) to the students for ten seconds, and asks them to input via their Whiteboard controls the image from each pair they prefer. The students are instructed if they have questions, to type them in so all of the students can see them on the Whiteboard's screen.

If the students type in what is meant by "prefer," Teacher A types in for display on the Whiteboard that it's up to them to decide for themselves (McCoy, McCoy, and Levey, 2007). Teacher A then types in for each student to provide one reason why he/she picked a particular image (McCoy, et al., 2007). Students will type in their responses, which are recorded collectively on the screen for the class' review. Beginning the activity in this way engages the students because they are unsure what answers you are expecting, and they are curious as to why they are doing the activity (McCoy, et al., 2007).

Part 2.

Next, using illustrations (Figure 2), Teacher A types in the meaning of biodiversity (multiple types of living organisms), and that it has different components (McCoy, McCoy, and Levey, 2007). For example, genetic diversity may be illustrated using different breeds of dogs (McCoy, et al., 2007). All the dogs pictured are the same species (can breed with one another) but they are genetically distinct (McCoy, et al., 2007). Species diversity is illustrated by Teacher A on the Whiteboard by showing three distinctly unique animals (e.g., a slug, squirrel, and tree frog)(McCoy, et al., 2007). Teacher A also brings up images (Figure 2) of different types of easily recognizable ecosystems (e.g., a coastal habitat, rainforest, beaver pond or wetland)(McCoy, et al., 2007).

Part 3.

Teacher A shows on the Whiteboard the same series of images as in Part 1, except this time types in for the students to record the image using their Whiteboard controls that illustrates higher diversity (Figure 1). Teacher A reviews the students' answers, and assesses the students' understanding of the concept of diversity. Teacher A then asks the students to type in why they chose the image that they did. Based upon the students' answers, Teacher A proceeds to Step 4, or further reviews any missed concepts using the Whiteboard.

Part 4.

Teacher A reviews the number of times that students chose a preferred
image versus an image illustrating higher diversity using the recorded results.
Teacher A asks the students to use their Whiteboard controller to indicate how many originally preferred the images that were also the most diverse (McCoy, McCoy, and Levey, 2007). Most students prefer the more diverse pictures. Teacher A indicates for the students to state why they chose the diverse image, and to input their responses using their Whiteboard keyboard. Teacher A leads a verbal discussion of the responses with the students. Teacher A next types in a question on the Whiteboard asking students if they think their answers support the idea that humans are inherently attracted to diversity (McCoy, et al., 2007), which students respond to using their controllers. Teacher A then types in a question asking whether natural diversity is good for our well-being and for the well-being of nature (i.e., other organisms and ecosystems)(McCoy, et al., 2007). For example, what if there were no insects to pollinate flowers or no plants to provide oxygen (McCoy, et al., 2007)? This discussion highlights that conserving biodiversity is a matter of ethics (i.e., is good for the well-being of humankind) as well as aesthetics, and that we have an innate preference for diversity (McCoy, et al., 2007). Students are asked to perform research for 30 minutes using the links on the Whiteboard's homepage to answer the previous question. Teacher A types in that the students should upload their answers when completed, and then Teacher A (who is the only one able to read their answers) selects a half dozen responses for discussion via the Whiteboard.

Part 5.

The next activity on the Whiteboard's screen asks students to think of things that they get from nature, and choose selections from the provided exercise on the screen. Teacher A directs the students to a list of services provided by nature, which is a link on the homepage. The students then complete an exercise on the Whiteboard about the list, which includes selecting responses about whether people can get these services from a source other than nature (McCoy, McCoy, and Levey (2007).

Teacher A displays the next exercise that asks whether we can get these things from a source other than nature, and what if any economic costs of losing or replacing these "services" may be (McCoy, McCoy, and Levey, 2007), which is displayed as a written response via their keyboards. Initiating mathematically based questions provides an opportunity for the students to learn about the economic values related to Biodiversity, and exposes the students to ethical and aesthetic values of biodiversity (McCoy, et al., 2007).

Part 6.

Teacher A activates a new exercise on the Whiteboard to address Biodiversity losses. On the Whiteboard's homepage, there are ten sequential links (that have to be read by each student one at a time) that provide pages in the PowerPoint document that illustrate slash-and-burn agriculture, satellite photos of soil erosion, and photos of endangered and extinct species of plants and animals that have provided a service to humans. For example, a recently extinct frog (the gastric brooding frog) brooded its eggs in its stomach, which required that the frogs stop the secretion of digestive acids (McCoy, McCoy, and Levey, 2007). Many doctors and medical researchers were interested in this ability because they believed it would provide important insights into the medical treatment of humans who suffer from ulcers or other gastric problems (McCoy, et al., 2007). Before this phenomenon could be studied, however, the species went extinct.

At the end of each reading of the ten segments, students complete a series of questions using their controllers. Answers are electronically collected, and revealed to Teacher A. If there are any areas requiring further instruction, Teacher A addresses these through verbal discussion.

Part 7.

Teacher A reviews learning from Part 6, and activates an exercise for students as teams requiring research on the internet, and the teams use the meeting rooms within the Whiteboard to collaborate. The students use the Whiteboard controls to search the internet, and create an essay. The essay is submitted at the end of this part via their controller. This exercise provides students with another opportunity to learn how to do valid research, work as teams, and optimizes development of critical thinking skills.

Teacher A presents the topic of their essay, which is to research about how humans can help slow or stop biodiversity loss. Examples include recycling, voting, reducing pollution, and so forth (McCoy, McCoy, and Levey, 2007). Teacher A concludes this part by activating an onscreen display for the students to read about a conservation success story such as the American bald eagle or the recent discovery of the Ivory-billed Woodpecker (which was presumed extinct)(McCoy, et al., 2007). Teacher A makes a significant effort at this point to help students understand that they can make a difference in conserving the world's natural resources (McCoy, McCoy, and Levey, 2007).

The final step in the class is for Teacher A and Teacher B to have the students
complete the e-learning-based Process Assessment. Answers are electronically collected, and a report is generated. The report compares the Pre-assessment Survey results to the results of the Process Assessment. The results are input as grades for the students, added to their online portfolio, and discussed at a meeting with Teacher A and B, and their administrators.

Step-by-Step Procedures

Several procedures are required to convert the f2f class format to an e-learning class. First and foremost, Teacher A (working at ICS) will discuss her initiative to convert the f2f Biodiversity class to an e-learning format with the ICSs administrator. (If the new class is a success, Teacher A and the administrator will present the project to the rest of the ICSs teachers in the anticipation that other classes at ICS can be converted.) After gaining approval, Teacher A will contact a colleague at a nearby middle school, School B, which already employs whiteboards in their f2f classes.

Since the format of the converted class uses a blended learning structure (until such time that the class structure can be completely based upon e-learning rather than a blended structure), Teacher A and colleague, Teacher B, discuss the e-learning structure at Teacher Bs school, and the learning structure at ICS. Teacher A and B and their respective administrators agree that the project can move ahead. Teacher B arranges for training of the whiteboard for Teacher A.

Consequently, after training and receiving parental approval for the targeted ACS class to be transported three days per week to School B for initial training of the students on using the Whiteboard, the schedule at School B is adjusted to initiate training, which also includes a pre-assessment. The 15 students in the Biodiversity class will also receive support from the Biodiversity class members at School B during training, and during the class. Teacher B will be initially co-teaching the class to provide Teacher A with a few weeks of development (Rosenberg, 2001). According to Willis and Cifuentes (2005), "Creating model classrooms for course delivery provides teachers with an opportunity to practice and observe technology use and transfer these methods to their own classrooms" (p. 61). Therefore, an ideal learning scenario for Teacher A will consist of practice and observation in the f2f environment using the Whiteboard technology.

The length of the class is to be two months, and provides 24 class sessions. Each of the unit's parts takes longer than one session to complete. The f2f class structure required discussion between Teacher A and the students as each of the class' parts rolled out. The e-learning format provides discussion opportunities using the Whiteboard. Each of the parts of the class will be programmed into the Whiteboard, and Teacher A will control display of each part. Each student from the ICSs class will have access to the Whiteboard at their desks, and be able to participate in the Biodiversity exercises. Teacher A will monitor the students' responses to the exercises, and assess whether there are any areas needing further review before moving to the class' next teaching part. Any areas requiring further review will be manipulated by Teacher A in the Whiteboard's software. The Pre-Assessment and Process Assessment answers input by the ICS students will be evaluated by Teacher A and B as a team, and all of the activities performed using the Whiteboard will be permanently recorded for future use. The permanent record from the Whiteboard will be later shared with the ICS administrator, and at a staff meeting with the teachers at ICS.

Assessment Tool

A Pre-Assessment (post students' Whiteboard training), and a Process Assessment are to be used to measure students' progress. Both assessments are tied into the Summary of National Science Education Standards (Table 1). Additional assessment tools will include peer and self-assessments. With the combination of these four assessments, e-students will be more aware of the "key components that will be evaluated in the assignments…(because) taking the time to adapt assessments so that appropriate and timely feedback may be provided to e-students" (Hemby, Wilkinson, and Crews, 2007, p. 17) is critical to improving learning outcomes.

Reflection and Explanation about the Conversion Process

"Impediments to online teaching and learning can be situational, epistemological, philosophical, psychological, pedagogical, technical, social, and/or cultural" (Kirtman, 2009, p. 103). Despite numerous barriers, real or imagined, teachers must put improving student learning first and foremost. "Much of the research in the area of online teaching and learning has not focused on learning outcomes or academic achievement" (Kirtman, 2009, p. 104). In fact, Kirtman's (2009) research provides "evidence (to suggest) that there are similar learning outcomes whether students are in a traditional or online class" (p. 112). Challenges mean opportunity.

Furthermore, when Mentzer, Cryan, and Teclehaimanot (2007) conducted a study comparing learning in a f2f course with its comparable e-learning course, "student achievement differed only in the area of course assignments due to unsubmitted assignments rather than quality of work…and student mastery levels were essentially the same" (p. 244). As more and more studies are conducted, which add relevance to the opinion that f2f and online learning yield similar learning outcomes, teachers will not hesitate as much when thinking about transitioning f2f teaching to online learning. The time has come.

"Online delivery requires re-examination of course delivery mechanisms, course material comprehension, course assessment selections and weights, and overall instructional communication methods and their impacts" (Rebman, Cegielski, and Kitchens, 2004). Although this paper's content only superficially addresses some of these topics, the number and degree of these re-examinations hold keys to building e-learning classes. Each of the keys represent a piece of the collective pie needed for the reformatting.

Even though biodiversity and concepts associated with this subject are commonly taught by the use of field trips, the cost of such trips is prohibitive to the under-resourced schools in the inner city districts (McCoy, McCoy, and Levey, 2007). However, there will be little or no negative impact for the transportation costs of the ICS students to School B since the expenses for the bus trips have been included in the budget at ICS. Due to a federal grant provided to under-resourced schools for support of the No Child Left Behind legislation, ICSs e-learning project is financed.

Reasons for the recommended reformatting include that there will be several value-added features derived from the f2f project's conversion to e-learning. Most importantly, learning outcomes and motivation to learn will improve because of the ICSs students' exposure to more advanced teaching tools. Also, collaboration between schools will be enhanced, and teacher development for Teacher A and other ICS teachers will occur when learning the Whiteboard. In addition, if the project is a success, it is anticipated that ICS will strive to install Whiteboards at ICS in the future.

Rebman, Cegielski, and Kitchens (2004) wrote that a f2f course may not necessarily mean successful transition to an e-learning format. "With respect to online courses, an instructor must consider the rational for developing the online offering" (p. 20). The intended benefit of reformatting must be identified, and an interrelated methodology devised to achieve the course objective (Rebman, et al., 2004). Only after these steps are completed should the instructor decide on whether the online methodology is potentially successful (Rebman, et al., 2004).

Projecting upon how the reformatting of the class will affect the future development of the e-learning experience at ICS and School B, the e-learning class, which initially changed to a blended learning structure, can convert to a wholly presented e-learning class. The Whiteboard and computer connections to and from ICS and School B can expand to many schools, and one teacher at each school can manage their own class' learning, and modify the class' exercises as desired. The e-learning class via the Whiteboard can occur synchronously or asynchronously. The class can also be utilized by any learning impaired, otherwise disabled or second-language students as the features for accommodating these students are already written into the learning unit's curriculum and the Whiteboard's program.

Conclusion

This paper's focus discussed a face-to-face (f2f) lesson plan for teaching middle school students about the importance of biodiversity. Other discussion included the goals, materials, objects, and the step-by-step parts of the f2f instructional unit, and the unit's assessment tools. Furthermore, this paper presented discussion relative to conversion of the f2f activity to an online activity, which includes detail about the reformatting process, and an explanation of why certain components were changed to ensure a successful conversion. By analyzing a f2f instructional unit, and reformatting the unit's structure to provide an e-learning opportunity, the concluding design of such a project moved from a f2f class, to blended learning, to a complete online instructional unit.

References

Bernard, R.M., Abrami, P.C., Lou, Y., & Borokhovski, E. (2004, Fall). How does distance education compare with classroom instruction? A meta-analysis of the empirical literature. Review of Educational Research, (74)3, p. 379. Retrieved from ProQuest Education Journals.

Hemby, K.V., Wilkinson, K., and Crews, T.B. (2006). Converting assessment of traditional classroom assignments to the e-learning environment. Online Journal for Workforce Education and Development, (2)2, p. 1. Retrieved from ProQuest Education Journals.

Kirtman, L. (2009, Fall). Online versus in-class courses: An examination of differences in learning outcomes. Issues in Teacher Education, (18)2, p. 103. Retrieved from ProQuest Education Journals.

McCoy, M.W., McCoy, K.A., & Levey, D.J. (2007, October). Teaching biodiversity to students in inner city and under-resourced schools. The American Biology Teacher, (69)8, p. 473. Retrieved from ProQuest Education Journals.

Mentzer, G.A., Cryan, J.R., & Teclehaimanot, B. (2007). Two peas in a pod? A comparison of face-to-face and web-based classrooms. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, (15)2, p. 233. Retrieved from ProQuest Education Journals.

MIT Teaching and Learning Laboratory. (2011). Assessment and evaluation. Retrieved from http://web.mit.edu/tll/assessment-evaluation/types.html

Rebman, C.M., Cegielski, C.G., & Kitchens, F.L. (2004, Summer). Web-based instructional course development: A new model and its implementation. Journal o f Informatics Education Research, (6)2, p. 9. Retrieved from ProQuest Education Journals.

Rosenberg, M.J. (2001). e-Learning: Strategies for delivering knowledge in the digital age. New York City, NY: McGraw Hill.

Willis, J., & Cifuentes, L. (2005). Training teachers to integrate technology into the classroom curriculum: Online versus face-to-face course delivery. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, (13)1, p. 43. Retrieved from ProQuest Education Journals.

Upsy Daisy and Teaching Online: Online Collaborative Learning

Upsy Daisy and Teaching Online: Online Collaborative Learning

Online Collaborative Learning

Abstract

Learning online for over twenty years, and having completed over two degrees, the online learning experiences were subjected to exposure to several universities' online teaching styles. Including discussion-based and collaborative learning, non-collaborative and mentored learning, and mentored learning only, each has provided positive and negative learning challenges. Although over one-third of university programs are now online, and universities have reacted to employers' calls for graduates who are collaboratively trained, not all online universities and online students have adapted successsfully to the online teaching-learning environment. How instructors' mentoring styles affect collaborative learning with their students, how universities design collaborative learning curriculums using online tools, and how online students' motivation to accept responsibility for learning in a collaborative setting are all challenges to successfully learning collaboratively.

Collaborative Activities

Identification of some of the issues affecting successful collaborative online teaching and learning activities, and investigating the potential solutions to those issues promotes the first step in assuring successful collaborative teaching and learning. Depending upon one's online teaching and learning experiences at various universities, the issues affecting good collaboration can vary. Regardless of those experiences, there are challenges facing instructors, universities, and students from the perspectives of (1) the instructors' mentoring styles, (2) the universities' curriculum design using online collaborative tools, and (3) online students' motivations to accept responsibility for learning in an online setting that can be identified, investigated, and proposed.

Diverse Affectors of Instructors' Mentoring Styles

Instructors' mentoring styles can affect successful collaborative teaching and learning experiences for their students. The Illinois Online Network (2011) reported that the goal of mentoring is to "promote learner development drawing out and giving form to what the student already knows…(serving) as a guide rather than a provider of knowledge and…introducing students to the new world, interpreting it for them, and helping them to learn what they need to know to function in it" (para 14). However, achieving such a goal is negatively impacted by such problems as a "lack of time to plan and deliver an on-line course; lack of support and assistance; burden of training time to learn and update technology skills; (and) inadequate compensation and incentives" (Dennis et al., 2007, p. 42).

The lack of time to plan and deliver an on-line course is a serious prohibitor when a university requires such work from an instructor. Although the time invested in planning an online course occurs before the start of a course, delivering an online course requires a constant delivery mode if the course is to be successful in achieving learning outcomes (Brindley, Walti, & Blaschke, 2009). Even if the university has created a course independent from the mentor's input, the mentor is responsible for ensuring its delivery.

The lack of support and assistance from an instructor's employer not only increases the amount of time the committed instructor must invest in planning and delivering an online course, it can also break the instructor's flow or rhythm when mentoring. For example, the lack of support can originate from a university's administration who is prone to not listen to the instructor's advice (whether the university created the course or not), and does not provide the tools that the course requires. Clearly, a paradox exists when an instructor is given a course's objectives to carry out but the university inconsistently provides support.

Online teachers new to e-learning must be able to adapt to teaching paradigms that require "greater initiative, tenacity, and self-discipline" (Dennis, Bunkowski, & Eskey, 2007, p. 37). The burden of training time to learn and update to new paradigms and technology skills as well as other new skills and behaviors to interactively communicate with students (Brindley, Walti, & Blaschke, 2009) seriously impedes an instructor's ability to invest time in collaborating with students. Every university has its particular culture, which includes the teaching software platform. Assuming that an instructor has prior experience with a university's platform, and not providing adequate time to use a teaching platform prior to the course's initiation can significantly prohibit an instructor's ability to use that platform successfully. Furthermore, when a university does not adequately orient an instructor about its teaching mission, an instructor cannot be using the time element to its best advantage.

Brindley, Walti, & Blaschke (2009) reported that an inadequate or uncompetitive amount of compensation and incentives can seriously impede an instructor's commitment to teaching and mentoring. Instructors need motivators as much if not more than students. For example, instructors invest a very significant amount of time and money in becoming an instructor as do students invest in learning. When an instructor's quality of living, which is impacted by salary, pension, health insurance and other incentives, is negatively affected, their willingness to devote time and talent to collaborating with students online is not going to be fulfilling to anyone.

Solutions for Improving Instructors' Mentoring Syles

The potential solutions for improving instructors' mentoring styles for affecting successful collaborative learning experiences for their students can include that the mentor initiates frequent communications between the mentor and student. For example, the mentor can initiate the use of weekly or even daily journals, which can be passed between the mentor and student via the learning portal's or personal e-mailing systems. Such a constant dialogue affects the development of a positive relationship between the mentor and student, and enables the mentor to take advantage of a constant dialogue for issuing feedback, and answering a student's questions, concerns, and issues (Illinois Online Network, 2011, para 15).

"Mentors in education teach by interpreting the environment and modeling expected behaviors, (and) support, challenge, and provide vision for their students" (Illinois Online Network, 2011, para 15). As noted above, the lack of time to plan and deliver an on-line course, the lack of support and assistance by the employer, the burden of increased training time to learn and update technology skills, and an inadequate level of compensation and incentives (Dennis et al., 2007) all impede the instructor's ability to support such modeling. To address and solve such issues in order for collaborative learning to be supported, instructors should carefully negotiate matters in writing with their employer that adequately supports the university's mission: provide adequate training to instructors that is specific to the university's culture and technology prior to the course's initiation, provide ongoing and obvious support to the instructor, collaborate with the instructor to gain professional insight into the course's development and delivery, and continually provide not only competitive compensation and incentives but additional perks that promote an instructor's commitment to the university.

Mentors can also support collaborative learning by using motivational tools to instruct. For example, Dennis, Bunkowski, & Eskey (2007) developed "Nine Events of Instruction" (p. 48) to offer guidelines to online instructors for motivating collaborative learning. Instructors must ensure that students' learning styles, which are addressed in the next section, are paramount to the delivery of the collaborative instructional events shown in the chart above. Generically-used motivators must never dominate an instructor's teaching style. Rather, customizing instructional motivators according to each student's learning style must take precedence. In addition to the points noted in the chart above, Brindley, Walti, & Blaschke (2009) found that after reinstituting a policy of grading group projects, motivation increased for students in the smaller study groups but did not increase for the larger study groups. Therefore, instructors should set group size at three to four members.

Brindley, Walti, & Blaschke (2009) identified several strategies for instructors to use to inform online learners about improving their learning outcomes. The strategies focus upon (1) the significance of collaborating, and (2) improving motivational techniques. The strategies are: enabling instructions and expectations to be transparent; using ice breakers, seeding, and providing expectations to the students about participation, etiquette, behavior guidelines, interaction standards, available tools, and techniques to use the tools; conducting exercises to aid learners in using online tools for retrieving, evaluating, and applying research, detailing of the requirements to participate in a study group in the course syllabus; encouraging participation in the study groups; being open and clear when explaining the purpose and process of online study groups; providing succinct project details in order for students' invested time to center on sharing ideas and workload rather than clarifying and understanding the task at hand; ensuring that the project's themes offer an opportunity for meaning-making and relevance in order for students to apply learning to a real life situation; and enabling exchange and
peer review of the completed group projects to foster an opportunity for enhancing learning. (para 36)

Diverse Affectors of Universities' Online Collaborative Tools Design

Universities' designs of collaborative learning curriculums using online tools is a challenge to successfully delivering collaborative learning. The Illinois Online Network (2011) reported that online instruction can be effective if learning experiences are appropriately designed and facilitated. Furthermore, universities acknowledging that learners use one or a multiple number of learning styles must design learning activities addressing those modes of learning. Each student's learning style(s) should be aligned with collaborative activities, which supports the university's technology that is used for teaching. "Hallmarks of metacognition include a heightened awareness of one's thinking, selection of processing strategies from a repertoire, reflection and readjustment, and sustained motivation to achieve" (Dennis, Bunkowski, & Eskey, 2007, p. 39). Instructors must be cognizant of whether learners exhibit such hallmarks or not, and if they do, address them.

Universities' sourcing of online collaborative course designers must be tied sufficiently to text and online teaching and learning suppliers. Sourcing should be tied to suppliers who are innovative, up-to-date, committed, and who can provide full support. Although governmental entities can affect a public university's ability to freely choose its suppliers, significant strides must be taken to retain sources for teaching software that has been proven to integrate best online teaching practices.

While investigating and retaining designers and suppliers, a university's information technology team and administration should work jointly to integrate the purchased e-tools into the university's software and hardware components. Retaining and integrating e-tools without budgetary approval, and commitment to long-term investing, will not result in a satisfactory e-learning platform for instructors or students, and will significantly impact the university's bottom-line when retention of good instructors and students declines.

Solutions for Improving Universities' Online Collaborative Tools Design

The potential solutions for improving Universities' designs of collaborative learning curriculums using online tools can include pre-assessments before each course's initiation of students' technology skills, learning styles, and collaborative abilities. Designing and reviewing the pre-assessments should be jointly shared by the instructor, administration, the university's information technology team, and the supplier. Course design should introduce and integrate e-tools that are more suitable to collaborative learning such as "wikis, social bookmarking, RSS, and Skype" (Brindley, Walti, & Blaschke, 2009, para. 42). Furthermore, the sourcing of course designers, text and online teaching suppliers should be mandated by the same group. A university's inhouse technology support team should demonstrate via quality reporting that the university's e-learning objectives are being met.

Bhati, Mercer, & Rankin (2010) reported that since e-learning tools have progressed from stand-alone to packaged sets of e-tools to address the request to positively affect improved collaborative learning, universities are impacted by instructors' hesitation to adopt to new technologies. The learning institution must clearly communicate to their instructors that teaching includes learning and using multiple technologies for collaboratively teaching such as "Second Life, Blackboard Vista, Moodle, MS Messenger, Hot Potatoes" (p. 7), and so forth. Hence, universities must provide to instructors the time and resources required to use them.

Diverse Affectors of Online Students' Motivations for Learning Collaboratively

Online students' motivations to accept responsibility for learning in a collaborative setting is a challenge to successfully learning collaboratively. Dennis, Bunkowski, & Eskey (2007) recognized that students need greater "initiative, tenacity, and self-discipline…to take courses in the online environment" (p. 37). In addition, students seeking learning flexibility in online classes often perceive group projects as barriers to learning. Rather than embracing collaborative learning, many students barely tolerate it (Brindley, Walti, & Blaschke, 2009). Brindley (et al., 2009) also reported that negative motivators to collaborative learning occurs when learners are not allowed to have personal control of tasks' content, process, intentions, goal setting, consequences, and outcomes. Allowing personal control of such elements, which has been shown to solidify students' engagement, a sense of responsibility, and heightens task relevance, should be addressed by the instructor and university. In addition, instructors must recognize that learners' disengaging in online discussions need to be motivated, and that a weak social infrastructure may need additional development (Deng and Yuen, 2007).

Solutions for Improving Online Students' Motivations for Learning Collaboratively

The potential solutions for improving online students' motivations to accept responsibility for learning in a collaborative setting can include instructors building a framework to scaffold learners using increasingly more complex interaction skills, which provides e-learning that focuses upon: communication with other learners, collaboration wherein learners share ideas and resources, cooperation between learners, and a community that seeks a common purpose (Brindley, Walti, & Blaschke, 2009). Such a framework provides support of students needing greater "initiative, tenacity, and self-discipline" (Dennis, Bunkowski, & Eskey, 2007, p. 37), who are seeking learning flexibility but believe that collaborative learning is a barrier to learning. The framework also provides students with a personal control of their own learning, and provides instructors with an ability to recognize and address students who are disengaging.

Conclusion

Identifying some of the issues affecting successful collaborative online teaching and learning activities, and investigating the potential solutions to those issues promotes the first step in assuring successful collaborative teaching and learning. The challenges facing instructors, universities, and students from the perspectives of (1) the instructors' mentoring styles, (2) the universities' curriculum design using online collaborative tools, and (3) online students' motivations to accept responsibility for learning in a collaborative setting were identified, investigated, and proposed. Whether there is a desire and an acceptance by instructors, universities, and students to accept and implement the potential solutions identified for improving collaborative learning, which originated from this writer's experiences, is yet to be realized.

References:

Bhati, N., Mercer, S., & Rankin, K. (2010, March). Barriers and facilitators to the adoption of tools for online pedagogy. International Journal of Pedagogies & Learning, 5(3), 5-19. Retrieved from EBSCOHost.

Brindley, J.E., Walti, C., & Blaschke, L.M. (2009). Creating effective collaborative
learning groups in an online environment. Retrieved from http://www.irrodl.org/
index.php/irrodl/article/view/675/1271

Deng, L., & Yuen, A. (2007, November). Connecting adult learners with an online
community: Challenges and opportunities. Research & Practice in Technology
Enhanced Learning, 2(3), 195 - 212. Retrieved from EBSCOHost Education Research
Complete.

Dennis, K., Bunkowski, L., & Eskey, M. (2007). The little engine that could -- how to start the motor? Motivating the online student. InSight: A Journal of Scholarly Teaching, 2, 37 – 49. Retrieved from EBSCOHost Education Research Complete.

Illinois Online Network. (2011). Instructional strategies for online courses. Retrieved from http://www.ion.uillinois.edu/resources/tutorials/pedagogy/
instructionalstrategies.asp

Sampling and Sample Size - Dr. Thompson

Sampling and Sample Size

As a research advisor to Dr. Thompson who plans to conduct a simple experiment to test the effectiveness of concept maps for his population, it is critical to understand the correct target for his study, and to conceptualize a good sampling plan, which is presented later in this paper. Dr. Thompson's research idea is to statistically test whether concept mapping would aid freshman students in raising scores obtained after completing the fifth learning activity. Although Dr. Thompson identifies six learning activities, he is specifically interested in determining if the fifth activity's remedial scores can be improved by using concept mapping. Consequently, only the fifth activity learning results will be examined. Dr. Thompson additionally desires to use a two sample independent t-test for his experiment.

Choudhery (2009) reminds the researcher to identify the null and alternate hypotheses first. Dr. Thompson's hypotheses could be represented by:

H0: μ(Group 1: Fifth Activity Scores of Trained) = μ(Group 2: Fifth Activity Scores of Untrained) meaning that the scores of the concept mapping trained students after the fifth activity are equal to the scores of the untrained students after the fifth activity.

H1: μ(Group 1: Fifth Activity Scores of Concept Mapping Trained) ≠ μ(Group 2: Fifth Activity Scores of Untrained).

As an advisor to Dr. Thompson, it is also important to review the information relevant to concept mapping so that understanding and agreement is reached on Dr. Thompson's theory, which is that concept mapping could improve remedial scores. Novak and Cañas (2009) explained that concept mapping enables students to learn structurally as they identify new concepts "in a hierarchical fashion with the most inclusive, most general concepts at the top of the map and the more specific, less general concepts arranged hierarchically below" (para 2). Concept mapping also includes cross-links to other concepts, and reveals a relationship (creative leap) from one unit of knowledge to another. Concept mapping was found to facilitate "meaningful learning and the creation of powerful knowledge frameworks that not only permit utilization of the knowledge in new contexts, but also the retention of the knowledge for long periods of time" (Novak & Cañas, 2009, para 18). Based upon this information, agreement that concept mapping could improve learning, and that remedial scores may increase, could occur between the advisor and Dr. Thompson.

To agree with Dr. Thompson's desire to use his stated statistical test, a review of information by Choudhery (2009) verifies the test's applicability. Choudhery (2009) wrote that "the independent two-sample t-test is used to test whether population means are significantly different from each other, using the means from randomly drawn samples" (para 1). Although Choudhery (2009) recommended using the z-test for sample sizes greater than 30 (our sample size stated later is 65 for each group), the factorial designed independent two-sample t-test is the test of choice.

Sampling Plan

Westat (2000) wrote that "there are two methods for randomly selecting a sample of
members…the simple random sampling method selects members from a list of all members. The systematic sampling method useful for sampling historical records selects members based on a sampling rate, such as, every fifth freshman student undergoing the six learning activities" (p. 9). Based on the above information, the plan includes the recommendation to use the simple random sampling method.

Simple Random Probability Sampling Method.

Of the approximately 150 students who have scores at the remedial level, and who are
proceeding through the six learning activities, two groups of 65 are required for the test based upon the G*power test's result (below), and Cohen's (1992) guidelines (below). One-hundred and thirty members of the population would be randomly selected prior to training. Consequently, of the 130 members, 65 would be randomly chosen to be trained in concept mapping. The other 65 members would not be trained.

After the results of the questionnaire (see the moderating variable section below) are tallied, and final sample sizes confirmed, a simple random process would be used. All of the approximately 150 students' names would be listed, and assigned a number. The researcher would then select at random 65 numbers for Group 1, and 65 numbers for Group 2. Systematic sampling is not preferred because the process although often used can violate randomness since an equal chance of being selected is not possible (Salkind, 2009). Furthermore, stratified sampling is not recommended because the experiment does not use subgroups, e.g., based upon age or gender, and, therefore, layers in the population are not being tested (Salkind, 2009).

Errors in Sampling.

Errors in choosing the samples would be minimized because of the questionnaire's
utility in eliminating any interacting variables, which would also minimize diversity within the samples. The samples would be representative of the population. Using a sample size of 65 is recommended by the G*power analysis, is conducive to reducing errors because of its larger size, and because extraneous variables as noted below are not part of the experiment, which greatly minimizes differences between the two samples (Salkind, 2009).

Extraneous Variables.

The extraneous variables that could be tested, and could, therefore, be related
to the dependent or independent variables (Salkind, 2009) but are not related to Dr.
Thompson's experiment include gender, remedial score results in reading, two other high schools, and age. Although Dr. Thompson had noted that he has (1) more data,
(2) made observations about the difference in learning processes between males and females, (3) noted that the gender of the students is almost exactly the same as the portion of males and females in the freshman class, (4) knowledge that the college has a strong nontraditional student following, and so forth, this detail is not being examined according to Dr. Thompson's hypotheses.

Moderating Variables.

Consideration of the moderating (interacting) variables, which are related to the dependent or independent variables, and could have an impact on the dependent variables (Salkind, 2009) (the fifth activity “attacking word problems" and fifth activity test scores), could include that (1) not all trained students obtain the exact same or quality level of skill in concept mapping (scores after the fifth activity are relatively not as good as expected), (2) some of the untrained sample had previous knowledge of concept mapping, (3) some of both samples had previously undergone the fifth activity and were repeating the activity, and (4) a large variance in the pre-training remedial scores could offset the test results unless sampling is carefully designed.

Sample Size

Available population is about 150; recommend using 65 for Group A (trained in concept mapping), and 65 for Group B (untrained in concept mapping). Both groups will complete and be tested on Activity 5.

Independent Variables

Concept Mapping Trained: Group A, Untrained: Group B

Dependent Variables

Fifth Activity “attacking word problems", and Test Scores of Fifth Activity

Other Information Needing to be Collected for Sampling Plan Development
The recommendation for further data collection includes that the members of the two
populations complete questionnaires prior to the beginning the fifth activity. (Future testing of the usefulness of concept mapping in improving scores in all five activities would require training a sample before the activities begin.) The questionnaire would serve to factor out the effects of the moderating variables on the experiment's results. For example, students that received concept mapping training prior to college admittance would be eliminated from the experiment because (1) if a student is assigned to the sample of untrained members, and had received concept mapping training, this student's scores would bias the experiement's results, and (2) the concept mapping training given to the experiment's sample may be incongruent with the training students had received in the past, and would bias the experiment's results. The questionnaire would also aid in removing any restricting (control) variables. Once the questionnaire's results are examined and recorded, the sample sizes may need to be lowered because the above restricting variables may cause elimination of some of the sample's members.

Other information that would be very useful for Dr. Thompson to consider is that since the experiment will invest a certain amount of time, training in concept mapping, and data collection, conducting the experiment for each of the five activities, rather than just one, may help to improve learning in each activity. Dr. Thompson could also consider adding layers to the experiment so that gender differences are examined. For example, Dr. Thompson had noted that the gender of students was almost the same proportion of gender of those in the freshman class, and examining a gender subgroup that is almost the same would provide good testing validity. Considering subgroups arriving from different high schools, and/or subgroups of different ages could also be insightful for Dr. Thompson's experiment. For example, such an experiment could show that students have higher scores when coming from a specific high school, or that older students test higher in the initial remedial tests (or in activities) because older students bring more experential knowledge to the table. Consequently, before recommending a sample plan to Dr. Thompson, other considerations could be reviewed because a more complex experiment could gain more useful knowledge.

Using the G*power website, calculate the sample size that will provide an appropriate level of power and appropriate effect size for your research. Briefly discuss the outcome of that power analysis.

I had determined I wanted to use 64 in Group A (untrained), and 64 in Group B (trained in concept mapping) according to Conrad's (1992) guidelines, which explained that "to detect a medium difference between two independent sample means (d= .50) at a = .05 requires N = 64 in each group" (p. 158). The available population is about 150; therefore, the recommendation to Dr. Thompson (prior to using G*Power) would be to use 64 for Group A (not trained), and 64 for Group B (trained in concept mapping). This group size was verified after downloading the
newer version of G*Power 3.1.3, and using the a priori power analysis for a t test for the difference between two independent means, which calculated the sample size at 65 for each group. The calculation also included an Actual power (1-β err prob) = .916, and an Effect Size (ES) d = 0.5. The new recommended groups' size is 65.

As noted above, the calculation also included an Actual power (1-β err prob) = .916, and an Effect Size (ES) d = 0.5. Since there is a 92% chance of obtaining a statistically significant result from the study by using the sample size obtained, I would recommend that the study proceed because there is a high probability that the study will reject the null hypothesis because it is false. Since the power is very high, the chances of committing Type I (declaring a difference that does not exist) or Type II (concluding there is no effect when, in fact, there is one) errors is very small.

Regarding the Effect Size (ES) d = 0.5, the larger the number, the more effective the experimental treatment: generally an effect size in the .20's would show a treatment that produced a relatively small effect, and an effect size in the .80s would indicate a powerful treatment. The a priori indicated 0.5 so it appears the test using the sample size of 65 would be somewhat powerful.

Heinrich Heine Universitat Dusseldorf (2012) explained that the "sample size N is computed as a function of the required power level (1-β), the pre-specified significance level α, and the population effect size to be detected with probability (1-β)" (para 1). The a priori analyses offers an efficient procedure or "controlling controlling statistical power before a study is actually conducted, and can be recommended whenever resources such as time and money required for data collection are not critical" (Heinrich Heine Universitat Dusseldorf, 2012, para 2). According to the information provided, which did not disclose any issues with resources, the power analyses would be useful for Dr. Thompson's study especially due to its results suggesting the same size of each group being similar to Cohen's (1992) recommendation.

References:

Arsham, H. (2012). Statistical thinking for managerial decisions, 9th ed. Retrieved from http://home.ubalt.edu/ntsbarsh/stat-data/Javastat.htm

Choudhury, A. (2009). Independent two sample t-test. Retrieved from http://www.experiment-resources.com/independent-two-sample-t-test.html#ixzz1klACqyoM

Cohen, J. (1992). A power primer. Psychological Bulletin, 112 (9), 155-159. Retrieved from http://classes.deonandan.com/hss4303/2010/cohen%201992%20sample%20size.pdf

Heinrich Heine Universitat Dusseldorf. (2012). A priori power analyses. Retrieved from http://www.psycho.uni-duesseldorf.de/abteilungen/aap/gpower3/

Novak, J.D., & Cañas, A.J. (2008). The theory underlying concept maps and how to construct and use them. Retrieved from http://cmap.ihmc.us/publications/researchpapers/ theorycmaps/theoryunderlyingconceptmaps.htm

Salkind, N. (2009). Exploring research, 7th ed. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Pearson Education Ltd.

Westat. (2000). Performance outcomes measures project for the administration on aging. Implementation guide: General sampling plan. Retrieved from
http://www.aoapomp.net/pompI/smp_plan.pdf

The Role of Reflection in Online Learning

Abstract

Investigating research that appraises the use of reflection in individual and collaborative learning activities must be accepted as the equal responsibility of universities, instructors, and learners. Although strategies that integrate the use of reflection into an online course's activities have been devised for instructors to use, empowering students to self-direct learning is only slowly emerging. Self-directing learning embraced by reflective methods is shown to not only improve academic performance but additionally promises synchronization between people by enabling ownership in collaborative skill development.

Reflection

When conflict creates ambiguity, a reflective intellectual can move toward reducing ambiguity by considering alternative perspectives instead of depending upon personal experience and assumptions (Sinclair, 2009). This paper discusses the function of reflection in online learning, and the strategies usable by instructors (and universities) to support reflection practices by learners. As new teaching paradigms identify innovative best practices, sustaining collaboration to achieve new learning objectives overtakes previous teaching methods. Consequently, using reflective methods to support collaboration between online students presented herein moves into a dominant position as students delve into learning course concepts.

The Role of Reflection in Promoting Learning in an Online Course

Palloff and Pratt (2007) indicated that transformative learning exercises reflection by encouraging learners (and instructors) to "reframe and reinterpret" (p. 201) new learning. Specifically, transformative learning as noted by Wallace (n.d.) encourages a "personal understanding of issues or beliefs…by…assessing the evidence and arguments of a point of view or issue…then reflecting critically on the new information, and making a personal judgment based on a new assessment of the information" (para 12). As transformative learning and reflection prompts learners to "explore beyond the confines of the course material" (Palloff and Pratt, 2007, p. 202), learners experience improved self-esteem and engagement. Furthermore, reflection via transformative learning offers instructors the opportunity to question their personal and professional teaching assumptions, and guides instructors as they visualize better learning paradigms (Palloff and Pratt, 2007).

Brandes and Boskic (2008) wrote that as students' technological skills improve, their "ePortfolios are richer and more complex in the ways in which they illustrate learning. Metaphors and hypertexts become useful vehicles to move away from linearity and chronology towards new organizational modes that better illustrate students’ cognitive processes" (Brandes and Boskic, 2008, p. 14). As an online community of inquiry expands, an instructor's and students' peer roles in enhancing reflection expands.

Brandes and Boskic (2008) also reported that varying degrees of reflection are represented in different learning stages exhibited when a learner moves "from noticing, to making sense, to making meaning and working with meaning and transformative learning" (p. 3). As learners develop a more "holistic view of what is learned…(they) link ideas to other ideas, construct relationships with prior knowledge, and provide evidence of restructuring ideas and evaluating the learning process" (Brandes and Boskic, 2008, p. 3). When constructing and reviewing an ePortfolio, the varying learning stages provide the scaffold to move into deeper learning. The instructor's role as learners work on their ePortfolios is to support reflection, and guide learners in analyzing and reporting new knowledge.

Strategies Used by Instructors to Promote the Reflective Process in an Online Course

Stine (2009) noted that an online class' discussion forum has the "capacity to expand, enhance, and elevate the level of students’ reflection on course content and on their own cognitive style…(as well as supports) composition instruction, active learning, and community building" (p. 46). Due to the potential positive effects derived from a discussion forum as shown by much research, universities and instructors should not delay in assessing and using the most sophisticated software to support an online forum presence. For example, McBrien, Jones, and Cheng (2009) found that when using "Elluminate Live!" (p. 1), an online software program, certain "themes emerged related to dialogue, structure, and (reducing) learner autonomy…(and) students rated convenience, technical issues, and pedagogical preferences as important elements in their learning experiences" (p. 1). Consequently, if learning's purpose is to improve a society, support a globally and unharmful competitive advancement, and protect the earth's environmental system, investing in more sophisticated and relevant discussion forum software would not be wasted.

Palloff and Pratt (2005) recommended that instructors integrate learner-centered assessment tools in online learning that includes reflective elements in both individual and collaborative activities. By empowering students to reflect upon their learning outcomes, instructors obtain valuable "formative and summative" (Palloff and Pratt, 2005, p. 43)student-generated information useable for tweaking future teaching objectives. Such information should also be distributed to other pertinent university staff who are responsible for designing online learning modules.

The rationale for such a recommendation is not only that others in addition to the instructor can affect new paradigms for improved teaching but also that student feedback provided by end-of-course surveys frequently limits the ability for students to offer deep reflection. Use of online portfolios by students and collaborative groups enables students to showcase work, and aids the instructor and others in assessing students' contributions and degree of learning (Palloff and Pratt, 2005). Instructors may (1) invite learners to supply sample test questions for future development of assessment tools, and (2) direct collaborative groups to design and submit guidelines to the instructor early in the course that will demonstrate the group's competence (Palloff and Pratt, 2007). When students are engaged in their own learning, learning becomes more meaningful and motivational.

A study by Brandes and Boskic (2008) found that learners invited instructors to examine the "individual and the social construction of knowledge"(p. 8). Brandes and Boskic (2008) reported that when instructors offered various "venues for reflection through analytical examinations of exemplars of ePortfolios, discussions of choices of tools, as well as opening spaces for explorations of new ideas and media" (p. 15), the positive effects of reflection expanded exponentially. When instructors become willing to creatively provide e-tools, learners become empowered to direct self-learning.

Methods Employed by Students to Collaboratively Reflect on Course Concepts

Stine (2006) wrote that learners using online journals to reflect upon past and current knowledge can then project their thoughts using a blog or discussion post, review comments received, and then reach further to online resources that will contribute to deeper understanding. As the collaborative element of reflection enables a learner group to share problems, and an opportunity to discuss "very real and often complex issues" (Stine, 2009, p. 205), new and deeper understanding is realized individually. Advising that a group's feedback should offer "both explanation and provocation" (Stine, 2009, p. 205), discussions will be more "intellectually substantive and demanding" (p. 205).

Palloff and Pratt (2005) wrote that collaborating learners have far more opportunities to collect information about other group members. As the information is compounded by time, group members learn of other group members' strengths and weaknesses. If the learners have had the opportunity to appreciate group dynamics, members can positively impact the evolution of weaknesses into strengths. However, all learners should first be cognizant of methods employed for assessing others. The teaching institute and instructor should not only ensure that such methods are communicated to learners but that learners have learned, and are properly utilizing processes for reflection and assessment of peers. Learners should think profoundly about writing notes to others especially how others may perceive the notes as well as making certain their notes are professional and non-inflamatory.

The study by Brandes and Boskic (2008) found that learners' "discussions, reflections, and summaries in ePortfolios…were woven with one organizing theme" (p. 11). Brandes and Boskic (2008) first found that initially learners' "ePortfolios were organized by the required elements…including the rationale, assessment rubric, teaching philosophy, courses, electives, and reflections" (p. 12). However, later in the study, Brandes and Boskic (2008) found that learners' ePortfolios provided "a tool and structure for students to document events, research, ideas, reflect, and analyze these ideas, use the analysis to inform the next steps, and then share their ideas with others" (p. 12).

Geer (2000) wrote that "using collaorative learning approaches can enable internet-based learning to be as effective as the traditional classroom where collaborative learning is a common feature" (p. 2425). Such learning approaches should provide elements of interactivity, which enables "powerful interactions between students (that) can lead to higher order thinking, hypothesis formation and reflection" (Geer, 2000, p. 2425). Collaborative interactivity, which combines collaboration between learners of assigned and self-directed tasks, and involves a "rich discursive interaction, is…an essential component for providing a richer learning experience" (Geer, 2000, p. 2425).

Conclusion

This paper discussed the functions of reflection in online learning, and the strategies usable by instructors (and universities) to support reflection practices for learners. As presented above, new teaching paradigms have identified reflection as an innovative best practice. Sustaining collaboration to achieve new learning objectives has overtaken previously supported teaching methods. As universities and instructors implement reflective methods to support collaboration between students, today's online students can experience very powerful learning opportunities if they choose to do so.

References:

Brandes, G.M., & Boskic, N. (2008, June). Eportfolios: From description to analysis. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 9(2), 1-17. Retrieved from ERIC.

Geer, R. (2000). Drivers for successful student learning through collaborative interactivity in internet based courses. Retrieved from ERIC.

McBrien, J.L., Jones, P., & Cheng, R. (2009, June). Virtual spaces: Employing a synchronous online classroom to facilitate student engagement in online learning. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 10(3), 1-17. Retrieved from ERIC.

Palloff, R.M., and Pratt, K. (2005). Collaborating online: Learning together in community. San Francisco, California: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Palloff, R.M., and Pratt, K. (2007). Building online learning communities: Effective strategies for the virtual classroom. San Francisco, California: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Sinclair, A. (2009). Provocative pedagogies in e-learning: Making the invisible visible. International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, 21(2), 197-212. Retrieved from ERIC.

Stine, L.J. (2010, Spring). Teaching basic writing in a web-enhanced environment. Journal of Basic Writing, 29(1), 33-55. Retrieved from ERIC.

Wallace, S. (n.d.). Core principles of transformative learning theory - Mezirow & others. Retrieved from http://transformativelearningtheory.com/corePrinciples.html