Journal of Research in Innovative Teaching - National University

More documents

Recommendations

Info

affordance of opportunities for self-assessment in relation to course learning outcomes, initiation of learner-centered assignments and activities, and delineation of reliable pathways to student success, including perception of assessment consequences as meaningful and fair (Hirumi, 2005). There is broad agreement among researchers, instructors, and course developers about the generalized criteria for success in education. A survey of pedagogical goals applicable to most higher-education learning situations might typically include the following: (a) learners’ needs must be central; (b) expected course learning outcomes, learning objectives, and course goals should be fully stated at the outset of a course; (c) course assignments or “learning events” should be designed and sequenced in line with course learning outcomes; (d) rationales for how assignments relate to the achievement of learning goals should accompany assignment descriptions; (e) the delivery of course elements such as content modules, instructional materials, learning activities, and assessment tools should be aligned to distinct learning environments; (f) learning elements should be geared toward engaging multiple learning styles; (g) timely, useful, and individualized feedback must follow all important or graded student work; (h) course assignments and activities should engender high levels of interpersonal interaction at all levels (instructor-class, instructor-individual student, student-student); and (i) evaluative summaries and grade justifications should align with learning objectives and follow a logical and standardized rubric that is published at the start of the course (Edmondson, 2007; Fabry, 2009; Koszalka & Ganesan, 2004; Saulnier, Landry, Longenecker, & Wagner, 2008). Although the learning tool presented here was created for use in an online course, it can easily be adapted to other delivery platforms. Following Fabry (2009), with careful attention to research in pedagogical theory and effective learning-design strategies, comparable learning experiences in hybrid learning environments as well as face-to-face courses can be generated to reach the desired goals of all stakeholders in the broader endeavors of higher education. The Q&A Forum The Need for Interaction There is widespread acknowledgement that successful education, whether online or face-to-face, relies on both good teaching and effective learning design, and both entail reliable and meaningful interaction between instructor and students as well as (student) peer interaction, cooperation, and collaboration (Chickering & Gamson, 1987). Moreover, essential to success in learning is positive and quantifiable demonstration of student comprehension of course content. In online venues, combining the two overarching goals of critical interaction and effective assessment has led to the near-universal adoption of the asynchronous, text-based interactive “threaded” discussion assignment or “discussion board.” Bliss and Lawrence (2009) point out that the discussion board provides an interactive framework in which learners can become part of a “community of inquiry” and thereby build social networks and avenues of communication that are unavailable in traditional pedagogical situations, where students submit individual written work to the instructor, who then responds to each student privately with feedback and assessment scores. Bliss and Lawrence also maintain that discussion-board assignments foster use of higherorder critical thinking skills such as analysis, synthesis or creation, and evaluation (Bloom, 1956; see Krathwohl, 2002 for a recent overview and revision of Bloom’s taxonomy). Beyond this, discussion boards allow instructors to function as both facilitators and teachers—stimulating, 163
encouraging, acknowledging, and reinforcing student contributions and also guiding, correcting, augmenting, and redirecting student discussion. Perhaps the most touted aspect of the discussion board is its capacity to generate and foster communication among students, a feature considered to be integral to the learning process, particularly in higher education, where good communication skills are essential to success (Buzzetto-More & Alade, 2006). In real-time, face-to-face classrooms, casual student interaction is natural and unforced; students do not take much coaxing to engage in question-and-answer sessions or even lively debates, given the right topics. However, despite the opportunity for enhanced interactivity, the online classroom faces certain obstacles. Students are isolated and, by definition (as partakers in distance learning), at a distance from one another; hence getting students to interact and engage with each other in substantive conversations can pose a challenge. Ascough (2002) develops the argument that asynchronous threaded discussions are one of the best ways to ensure student-to-student interaction at a deep level. Because students are all responding to the same set of questions or discussion prompts, and because they are able to read each others’ responses as well as the instructor’s comments to individual posts, there is a feeling of communal activity. Pedagogically speaking, each learning environment can take something from the other: Online courses need to ensure that the possibilities for communication and interaction enabled by the online format are realized by requiring students to work in teams or in groups to share ideas; onsite classes must not overlook the advantage of having all members of the class together, in person, for an extended time by using that situation to get students involved in group activities as well as class discussions. There is no reason that onsite classes could not incorporate discussionboard assignments into their curriculum; the same sets of questions could be assigned, but the sharing and discussing of responses could be done in class through group activities or general class discussion instead of posting them to online forum. Turning now to a consideration of online classes, despite all of the positive features of discussion boards and interactive discussion assignments, with students’ schedules and life priorities being what they are in today’s world, there is a tendency for students to treat the discussion board merely as a repository for their completed assignment (“post-and-go”). Without specific directives in place requiring students to communicate or collaborate in some way on the assignment, many students will skip the extra step of reading their peers’ contributions or engaging with the class through critical commentary. Gagne, Briggs, and Wager (1992, as cited in Ascough, 2002) affirm that instructors and course developers must intentionally build features into the course that motivate students to interact and require them to engage with other students as part of an assignment or class activity. For this reason, most instructors who use the discussion board as a learning and assessment tool include an addendum to the assignment: peer comments. The typical discussion-board assignment will consist of two parts: (1) answering, in essay format, a certain number of questions or elaborating on certain themes, concepts, or topics covered in course readings or lecture materials; and (2) critically commenting on the posted responses of at least two other students in the class. The discussion board, augmented by peer comments, has become, along with a final paper or research project, an accepted standard assignment in most online courses. While interactive discussions are here to stay as an essential component of any college- or university-level online course, there remains a need for increasing the amount and upgrading the level of peer interaction that is integral to these discussion-format assignments. Questions, not Comments 164
Page 2 and 3:
Journal of Research in Innovative T
Page 4 and 5:
Table of Contents Editor’s Column
Page 6 and 7:
Editor’s Column National Universi
Page 8 and 9:
training-based method for integrati
Page 10 and 11:
The Editorial Board invites the rea
Page 12 and 13:
The Influence of Social Worlds on E
Page 14 and 15:
experience in a strong group settin
Page 16 and 17:
Table 1 Example Scenario of a Burea
Page 18 and 19:
hierarchy ensures a social position
Page 20 and 21:
(see Figure 5). Each member is affo
Page 22 and 23:
through four types of instructional
Page 24 and 25:
Hierarchic (high grid, strong Group
Page 26 and 27:
Figure 10. Didactic Task Structure
Page 28 and 29:
Stansberry, S., & Harris, E. (2005)
Page 30 and 31:
Utilizing current research-based co
Page 32 and 33:
teachers. The instructor kept a mas
Page 34 and 35:
References Coburn, C. E. (2001). Co
Page 36 and 37:
Organizing for Instruction Carefull
Page 38 and 39:
Accelerated Learning 33
Page 40 and 41:
the learning process but rather to
Page 42 and 43:
Csikszentmihalyi (1982) has written
Page 44 and 45:
term (intersession) gets its name b
Page 46 and 47:
Some Important Issues Scott and Con
Page 48 and 49:
esponsibilities). A higher percenta
Page 50 and 51:
them in such a way that the likelih
Page 52 and 53:
makes a valuable contribution to ou
Page 54 and 55:
North American Association of Summe
Page 56 and 57:
E-learning 51
Page 58 and 59:
Academic Learning Today Academic in
Page 60 and 61:
In the original publication by the
Page 62 and 63:
• Individual (1) — Group (2) co
Page 64 and 65:
Challenges and Opportunities From t
Page 66 and 67:
About the Authors Cynthia (Cindy) L
Page 68 and 69:
AGILE TEACHING: A CASE STUDY OF USI
Page 70 and 71:
the scope-by-name feature of Ruby e
Page 72 and 73:
need to deal with. Students learned
Page 74 and 75:
experiment with different options f
Page 76 and 77:
the students evaluate the optimum s
Page 78 and 79:
Using Bibliotherapy as a Tool for C
Page 80 and 81:
different clients and their present
Page 82 and 83:
supervisees with a brief synopsis o
Page 84 and 85:
Stick Figure, by Lori Gottlieb As t
Page 86 and 87:
psychological awareness to encourag
Page 88 and 89:
on the Internet. To keep the classr
Page 90 and 91:
The third portion of the discussion
Page 92 and 93:
Henry, S. (2005). A different appro
Page 94 and 95:
elementary-age students. Linked wit
Page 96 and 97:
considered in multicultural literat
Page 98 and 99:
In Finding One, the conclusion was
Page 100 and 101:
Stephanie: “I learned that some p
Page 102 and 103:
importance in society and in school
Page 104 and 105:
published in the United States. Ret
Page 106 and 107:
Reading Practices in Elementary Sch
Page 108 and 109:
groups of students reading by apply
Page 110 and 111:
Table 2 Participant-Reported Teachi
Page 112 and 113:
Table 5A Teachers’ Reading Task P
Page 114 and 115:
Because electronic texts are increa
Page 116 and 117:
Conclusion As teachers work to impr
Page 118 and 119: Bilingual Education and Second Lang
Page 120 and 121: successful in hiring enough qualifi
Page 122 and 123: Five Innovative Strategies That Wor
Page 124 and 125: The third strategy is “Determinin
Page 126 and 127: the categories, synthesized and def
Page 128 and 129: Fereshteh, M. H. (1995). Multicultu
Page 130 and 131: Can Balanced Bilingualism Be Achiev
Page 132 and 133: As may be seen from this discussion
Page 134 and 135: Alternatives to Current Methodologi
Page 136 and 137: education when students are isolate
Page 138 and 139: Conclusion SL learning must be a tw
Page 140 and 141: Language as Tool for a Global Educa
Page 142 and 143: encouraging passive learning. Such
Page 144 and 145: Similarly, their actions or what go
Page 146 and 147: should therefore not be glued to th
Page 148 and 149: Supplementary Reading Since there i
Page 150 and 151: Bruce, M. G., Podemski, R. S., & An
Page 152 and 153: • Sentence combination (using con
Page 154 and 155: The Motivational and Attitudinal Ch
Page 156 and 157: Other researchers have challenged t
Page 158 and 159: education classes were taught in Ru
Page 160 and 161: Participants also described how the
Page 162 and 163: Implications and Suggestions for Fu
Page 164 and 165: National University Carlsbad, CA Em
Page 166 and 167: Assessment and Evaluation 161
Page 170 and 171: An examination of the peer-comment
Page 172 and 173: language used in the description an
Page 174 and 175: promotes self-discovery (Saulnier e
Page 176 and 177: Appendix A Sample Language from an
Page 178 and 179: Student Evaluations of Courses and
Page 180 and 181: that there is a consistent positive
Page 182 and 183: (teaching) for all classes (11 item
Page 184 and 185: Figure 1. The Nonlinear Relationshi
Page 186 and 187: About the Authors Nataliya Serdyuko
Page 188 and 189: Best Practices 183
Page 190 and 191: The Textbook Elementary Statistics
Page 192 and 193: If the mean number of visits was as
Page 194 and 195: discussion in such courses is slow;
Page 196 and 197: Table 1. A grade list for a class o
Page 198 and 199: Sloboda, B. W. (2005). Improving th
Page 200 and 201: The Journal of Research in Innovati
Page 202: About the Author In the end of your
show all

Journal of Research in Innovative Teaching - National University

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?