REFLECTION on “Engaging students with new strategies and tools” - (describe how you can bring the technological tools learners are using outside the classroom into the educational process, and which tools and strategies are best for this purpose. Make sure to explain why each tool works well in a learning environment and the benefits and advantages it provides).
I attempted to create this graphic organizer with tools to support content, communication, and collaboration that applied to DE. They could be used in the classroom, but are more a necessity for Distance Learners.
CONTENT:
Edutopia: created by the George Lucas Foundation. A rich resource with multimedia , examples, and other resources with a k-12 focus. It includes case studies, problem-based learning, and tutorials.
Slideshare: free power point slide shows posted on many different content areas
iTunes University – iTunes U – a powerful distribution system for everything from lectures to language lessons, films to labs, audiobooks to tours. It is an innovative way to get educational content into the hands of students. Includes an extensive collection of Florida Virtual school curriculum.
YouTubeEDUC is YouTube with a focus on education/TeacherTube includes videos, docs, audio, photos, channels, community, blogs, classifieds, and teaching resources/SchoolTube is a website dedicated to student video and media sharing for entertainment and classroom use. Students and Teachers can share video lots of great short educational videos, science demos that are not easily done in the classroom, great teaching videos on complex content (Chemistry & Physics).
Thinkfinity (Verizon) and Filamentality (AT&T) – both sites are libraries of educational resources.
Annenberg media/Hippocampus/Kahn Academy: all free sites for educational tutorials and videos, especially for use in K-12.
COMMUNICATION
Twitter is a social networking in real time, it is convenient to keep up with the latest info, it is short (referred to as micro-blogging) and limited to 142 characters
Facebook is a social utility that connects people with friends of their choosing and privacy is controlled by the user, although privacy issues have been known to be compromised. Twitter would be a better educational tool, especially for teams that are problem solving. I would not recommend Facebook for educational uses.
Skype & Video Conferencing: both are vehicles for synchronous communications and collaborating. Webcams are used so person can be seen as well as heard.
Forums and Blogs: these are threaded discussions. Blogs are open to the public and great for educational discussions globally. Good for building PLNS (Personal Learning Networks) (Siemens, 2008).
Ning is starting to charge (from $3 to $50 / month), it offers an easy-to-use service that enables people to create custom branded social networks (see a 10 min video in YouTube on “Ning in Education”)and Diigo is a powerful research tool and knowledge-sharing community for highlighting, collecting, and sharing research. A specific account can be created to follow a specific title and research can be added by anyone to build the base.
Mind Maps and Graphic Organizers are tools for teachers and students to get the big picture, to analyze and draw connections, for helping with remembering and learning concepts by analyzing their similarities and differences.
COLLABORATION
VoiceThread – this could be used as a communication or collaboration tool: VoiceThread is a collaborative, multimedia slideshow that holds images, documents, and videos and allows people to navigate slides and leave comments in 5 ways: using voice (with a mic), text, audio file, or video (with a webcam). Shared a VoiceThread with friends, students, and colleagues for them to record comments too.
Webquests – student-centered and inquiry-based team experiences using the internet, for K-12. Traditionally WebQuests have an introduction, a process, a task, a list of resources, a conclusion, and an evaluation. Bernie Dodge and Tom developed the WebQuest model in early 1995 at San Diego State University.
Online Team Case Analysis – the TDC Model (Anderson, 2010) for online computer individual simulation, online synchronous chat rooms for weekly team meetings, and case analysis scenarios where decisions and project management activities are involved.
Wikispaces: a great place to work as a team and post work, compile ideas, review team mates ideas and collaborate, make decisions, and post reflections.
Second Life for Teaching and Learning – a hotlist of sites for educators including Introductory videos and media, professional support, teaching and learning, examples, NASA resources, virtual tours, and also how to build your own second life environment – all free
Educational MUVEs (Multi-User Virtual Environments) like the River City Project, developed by the Harvard Graduate School of Education for 6-9th grade. A complex problem solving scenario in a 19th century town where students apply their 21st century skills to explore, research, interview citizens, collect data, formulate hypothesis, test and draw conclusions. It integrates many disciplines.
References:
Anderson, T. (2010). Teaching in an online learning context. In T. Anderson (Ed.), The theory and practice of online learning (2nd ed.), (pp. pp343-365). Edmonton, AB: AU Press, Athabasca University.
Durrington, V. A., Berryhill, A., & Swafford, J. (2006). Strategies for enhancing student interactivity in an online environment. College Teaching, 54(1), 190−193. Retrieved from: http://web.ebscohost.com.ezp.waldenulibrary.org/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=4&hid=14&sid=92990109-4ba7-4ad4-a8a1-90081e57245b%40sessionmgr13, Accession Number 19754742.
Siemens, G. (2008, January). Learning and knowing in networks: Changing roles for educators and designers. IT Forum. Retrieved from Google Scholar: http://www.tskills.it/userfiles/Siemens.pdf
Siemens. (2008, Nov 18). Personal learning environments. Retrieved from http://www.elearnspace.org/blog/2008/11/18/personal-learning-environments-7/.
Siemens, G. (2007, September). 10 minute lecture – George Siemens - Curatorial teaching. Retrieved from: http://elluminate.tekotago.ac.nz/play_recording.html?recordingId=1188267162821_1190072043500.
Monday, October 25, 2010
Tuesday, October 12, 2010
Assessing Collaborative Efforts
Part1 - A summary of assessment strategies for online learning community participation:
Assessment in an online community collaborative project team should look very different from the traditional marking system that is prevalent in the educational environment. Here is a summary of some recommended assessment strategies for use in collaborative team activities. These are applicable to both online DE environments and f2f classrooms in assessing collaborative project teams:
• participation in discussions/blogs is a significant part of course grades (Swan, 2004) and Siemens (2008). Assessment scale ranges from the highest level of synthesis, integration, and application to analysis to the lowest level of summarizing (Palloff & Pratt, 2005);
• learning community members assess each other, based on clearly defined rubrics either written by the team or by the instructor, “a simple rule to remember when assessing collaborative work is that collaborative activities are best assessed collaboratively” (Palloff & Pratt, 2005, p. 44);
• team product achievement to the clearly defined instructor rubrics (Siemens, 2008);
• individual improvement assessed by the instructor (Siemens, 2008);
• feedback from networking and community responses (Siemens, 2008);
• team process in their product achievement as assessed by the instructor and each team member (this might include discussions, how decisions were reached (whole team vs individual and consensus vs voting), managing time deadline requirements, conflict resolution, team responsibility organization, team self-monitoring, and team leadership (Siemens, 2008);
• individual electronic portfolios including individual contributions as well as the team product are helpful in assessing the individual contributions to the team (Palloff & Pratt, 2005); According to Siemens (2004), learning is now a process of living. Formal education is only a stage of learning. Learning continues in virtually all aspects of life. Schools assign grades to demonstrate competency. Learning through life experiences creates artifacts instead that can be displayed in eportfolios. To move to more authentic assessment (as opposed to testing), is to create an assessment-trail that is centralized and under leaner control (Siemens, 2004);
• individual reflective self-assessment, (Palloff & Pratt, 2005);
• more traditional assessment of skills can be done with simulations, (Palloff & Pratt, 2005); and
• an online quiz is constructed from information shared on the forum during discussions contributing to the round robin (Stewart, 2007).
To summarize, factors other than grading contribute positively to the effectiveness of small collaborative learning groups in the online environment. Several authors are cited with specific instructional strategies that facilitate learner participation in small group projects. Benefits include an enhanced sense of community, increased skill acquisition, and better learning outcomes. Brindley, et al (2009) collected data on teams over a three year period from a class in an international master of distance education program and concluded that the “introduction of grading has made no discernible difference to participation in study groups based on a straightforward comparison of participation rates between the graded and non-graded sections”. The authors proposed alternative methods to encourage learners to experience the value of collaborative learning by creating study group experiences that are motivating and rewarding. They include many of the strategies that are listed above.
Part 2 - Problems with team member participation?
Occasionally, one member of a study group does not pull his or her weight but this is the exception rather than the rule, and in most cases the groups organize themselves relatively quickly and all learners contribute fairly equally to the task. (Brindley, et al, 2009)
However, uncooperative or unproductive team members can be detrimental to a team if left unchecked. “A house divided cannot stand” comes to mind (as I am listening to a PBS review of pre-Civil War times playing in the background). Preventative maintenance, in my opinion, is the best approach to ensuring a team’s effectiveness.
This is accomplished by a combination of factors including: clear rubrics by the instructor, incorporating team participation and peer assessment as part of the course grade, team development of mission and charter, team development of time lines to accomplish the end product, team monitoring, and instructor established assessments including input from peers, self-reflections, and self-evaluations. Davis (1993) recommends strong expectations at the very beginning of a team with informal monitoring by the instructor and team self-evaluations for team effectiveness. She also suggests informing students about the research studies on the effectiveness of collaborative learning and describing the role it will play in the course.
In addition, establishing team norms and a team charter upfront by the team that align with the instructor’s team expectations should prevent any one individual monopolizing team decisions, but require all voices to be heard in the decision-making process.
If a problem still exists, the team should work with the student to see what the issues are and if the student needs extra support from other team members. Eventually, if the student is stubbornly refusing to participate, the team should continue by taking over that student’s responsibilities, notify the instructor and let the instructor conference with the student. Since it has already been established upfront that the student’s grade is dependent on their team participation, the instructor and the student should work out a resolution.
References:
Brindley, J. E., Walti, C., Blaschke, L.M., (2009). Creating Effective Collaborative Learning Groups in an Online Environment. The International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 10(3). Retrieved from http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/675/1271
Davis, B.G., (1993). An online excerpt on Collaborative Learning: Group Work and Study Teams from Tools for Teaching. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers. Retrieved from http://teaching.berkeley.edu/bgd/collaborative.html
Palloff, R.M., & Pratt, K. (2005). Collaborating online: Learning together in community. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publisher. A Wiley Imprint.
Siemens, G. (2008). Assessment of Collaborative Learning. (Vodcast). Principles of Distance Education DVD produced by Laureate Education, Inc. Baltimore.
Siemens. (2004, December 16). ePortfolios. Retrieved from http://www.elearnspace.org/Articles/eportfolios.htm
Stewart. (2007, Fall semester). Learning by design. Retrieved from http://www.baker-evans.com/knowledgegarden/Learning+by+Design?page=Learning+by+Design&comments_parentId=2547&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain
Swan, K. (2004). Relationships between interactions and learning in online environments. The Sloan Consortium. Retrieved from http://sloanconsortium.org/publications/books/pdf/interactions.pdf.
Assessment in an online community collaborative project team should look very different from the traditional marking system that is prevalent in the educational environment. Here is a summary of some recommended assessment strategies for use in collaborative team activities. These are applicable to both online DE environments and f2f classrooms in assessing collaborative project teams:
• participation in discussions/blogs is a significant part of course grades (Swan, 2004) and Siemens (2008). Assessment scale ranges from the highest level of synthesis, integration, and application to analysis to the lowest level of summarizing (Palloff & Pratt, 2005);
• learning community members assess each other, based on clearly defined rubrics either written by the team or by the instructor, “a simple rule to remember when assessing collaborative work is that collaborative activities are best assessed collaboratively” (Palloff & Pratt, 2005, p. 44);
• team product achievement to the clearly defined instructor rubrics (Siemens, 2008);
• individual improvement assessed by the instructor (Siemens, 2008);
• feedback from networking and community responses (Siemens, 2008);
• team process in their product achievement as assessed by the instructor and each team member (this might include discussions, how decisions were reached (whole team vs individual and consensus vs voting), managing time deadline requirements, conflict resolution, team responsibility organization, team self-monitoring, and team leadership (Siemens, 2008);
• individual electronic portfolios including individual contributions as well as the team product are helpful in assessing the individual contributions to the team (Palloff & Pratt, 2005); According to Siemens (2004), learning is now a process of living. Formal education is only a stage of learning. Learning continues in virtually all aspects of life. Schools assign grades to demonstrate competency. Learning through life experiences creates artifacts instead that can be displayed in eportfolios. To move to more authentic assessment (as opposed to testing), is to create an assessment-trail that is centralized and under leaner control (Siemens, 2004);
• individual reflective self-assessment, (Palloff & Pratt, 2005);
• more traditional assessment of skills can be done with simulations, (Palloff & Pratt, 2005); and
• an online quiz is constructed from information shared on the forum during discussions contributing to the round robin (Stewart, 2007).
To summarize, factors other than grading contribute positively to the effectiveness of small collaborative learning groups in the online environment. Several authors are cited with specific instructional strategies that facilitate learner participation in small group projects. Benefits include an enhanced sense of community, increased skill acquisition, and better learning outcomes. Brindley, et al (2009) collected data on teams over a three year period from a class in an international master of distance education program and concluded that the “introduction of grading has made no discernible difference to participation in study groups based on a straightforward comparison of participation rates between the graded and non-graded sections”. The authors proposed alternative methods to encourage learners to experience the value of collaborative learning by creating study group experiences that are motivating and rewarding. They include many of the strategies that are listed above.
Part 2 - Problems with team member participation?
Occasionally, one member of a study group does not pull his or her weight but this is the exception rather than the rule, and in most cases the groups organize themselves relatively quickly and all learners contribute fairly equally to the task. (Brindley, et al, 2009)
However, uncooperative or unproductive team members can be detrimental to a team if left unchecked. “A house divided cannot stand” comes to mind (as I am listening to a PBS review of pre-Civil War times playing in the background). Preventative maintenance, in my opinion, is the best approach to ensuring a team’s effectiveness.
This is accomplished by a combination of factors including: clear rubrics by the instructor, incorporating team participation and peer assessment as part of the course grade, team development of mission and charter, team development of time lines to accomplish the end product, team monitoring, and instructor established assessments including input from peers, self-reflections, and self-evaluations. Davis (1993) recommends strong expectations at the very beginning of a team with informal monitoring by the instructor and team self-evaluations for team effectiveness. She also suggests informing students about the research studies on the effectiveness of collaborative learning and describing the role it will play in the course.
In addition, establishing team norms and a team charter upfront by the team that align with the instructor’s team expectations should prevent any one individual monopolizing team decisions, but require all voices to be heard in the decision-making process.
If a problem still exists, the team should work with the student to see what the issues are and if the student needs extra support from other team members. Eventually, if the student is stubbornly refusing to participate, the team should continue by taking over that student’s responsibilities, notify the instructor and let the instructor conference with the student. Since it has already been established upfront that the student’s grade is dependent on their team participation, the instructor and the student should work out a resolution.
References:
Brindley, J. E., Walti, C., Blaschke, L.M., (2009). Creating Effective Collaborative Learning Groups in an Online Environment. The International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 10(3). Retrieved from http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/675/1271
Davis, B.G., (1993). An online excerpt on Collaborative Learning: Group Work and Study Teams from Tools for Teaching. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers. Retrieved from http://teaching.berkeley.edu/bgd/collaborative.html
Palloff, R.M., & Pratt, K. (2005). Collaborating online: Learning together in community. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publisher. A Wiley Imprint.
Siemens, G. (2008). Assessment of Collaborative Learning. (Vodcast). Principles of Distance Education DVD produced by Laureate Education, Inc. Baltimore.
Siemens. (2004, December 16). ePortfolios. Retrieved from http://www.elearnspace.org/Articles/eportfolios.htm
Stewart. (2007, Fall semester). Learning by design. Retrieved from http://www.baker-evans.com/knowledgegarden/Learning+by+Design?page=Learning+by+Design&comments_parentId=2547&comments_per_page=1&thread_style=commentStyle_plain
Swan, K. (2004). Relationships between interactions and learning in online environments. The Sloan Consortium. Retrieved from http://sloanconsortium.org/publications/books/pdf/interactions.pdf.
Sunday, October 10, 2010
Storyboard Power point
Slide 1)
http://i682.photobucket.com/albums/vv184/MKent48/Slide1A.jpg
Title: Science Inquiry in a Distance Education Environment:
STORYBOARD
8842 Distance Education course
Dr. Powley – Walden U
By Marlene Kent
Slide 2) http://i682.photobucket.com/albums/vv184/MKent48/Slide2A.jpg
Title: Traditional f2f recipe Biology labs
Video clip reenactment of students bored, off task, off topic, uninterested, unmotivated in a f2f teacher-directed lab situation on “The Effect of Temperature on Goldfish Respiration Homeostasis”.
Slide 3) http://i682.photobucket.com/albums/vv184/MKent48/Slide3A.jpg
Title: Inquiry Biology Homeostasis lab
Video clip of students engaged in asking questions, working in teams and designing their own inquiry lab on testing the effect of temperature on homeostasis in Goldfish respiration and behavior.
Slide 4) http://i682.photobucket.com/albums/vv184/MKent48/Slide4A.jpg
Title: Brain Neuroscience – Dopamine opens the doors
Recipe Labs: stress, boredom, confusion, low motivation, and anxiety can interfere with learning. Sensory input is blocked from entering the cortical areas of memory storage that lie beyond the amygdala
Inquiry Labs: Frontal lobe involvement
Neuronal circuits going from the limbic system (emotional center) into the frontal lobe and other parts of the brain are rich in dopamine receptors that are activated by this dopamine release (Nader et al. 2002).
Many of the strategies teachers use to engage students in learning have been demonstrated to activate this dopamine release (Wunderlich et al. 2005)
Slide 5) http://i682.photobucket.com/albums/vv184/MKent48/Slide5A.jpg
Title: Brain Neuroscience –
What turns on dopamine?
"With students' brains turned to the ideal state of activation, the speed and efficiency of information flowing through the filter to the learning centers of the brain is optimal.“ Willis, J (2007)
motivation ,
student-centered,
choices,
inquiry-based learning activities
Slide 6) http://i682.photobucket.com/albums/vv184/MKent48/Slide6A.jpg
Title: Mind Map of the Workshop
Main Topics
What is Inquiry Science & why?
Brain research?
How construct DE environment for science inquiry
Multimedia tools
Synchronous tools
Asynchronous tools
Team responsibilities
Assessments in a DE environment
Slide 7) http://i682.photobucket.com/albums/vv184/MKent48/Slide7A.jpg
Title: INQUIRY SCIENCE From f2f to DE
List of media tools for collaboration:
Asynchronous:
Wiki
Blogs
Forums
Videos – Hippocampus, Gizmos
Virtual Manipulatives - Gizmos
Synchronous:
Skype
Video conference call/Breeze
Video clip showing screen shots or video clips of:
blogs,
wikis,
skype,
virtual labs (Gizmos) on Human Homeostasis,
AP Bio video clips from Hippocampus,
Tutorials
Slide 8) http://i682.photobucket.com/albums/vv184/MKent48/Slide8A.jpg
Title: DE Assessment Strategies
Peer evaluation
Instructor Rubrics
Instructor evaluation on participation
Instructor evaluation on individual growth (improvement)
Student self-reflections
Student self-evaluation
Slide 9)http://i682.photobucket.com/albums/vv184/MKent48/Slide9A.jpg
Title: Team Developed Rubrics
Team Norms
Team Charter development and agreement
List of assignments and individual responsibilities
Time line for time management
Monitor of team process
Pre-teach activities: ExD tutorial, Homeostasis tutorial
Role-play activity with virtual lab manipulative
Individual labs with pre-agreed on procedures, collect data, share & analyze with team
Team reflection
Self-reflections
Slide 10) http://i682.photobucket.com/albums/vv184/MKent48/Slide10A.jpg
References:
Facione, P.A. (1990). The California critical thinking skills test: college level technical report #1 – experimental validation and content validity. Santa Clara Univ, CA: The CA Academic Press, pp.1-14. ERIC Document ED 327-549.
Hurst, D. & Thomas, J. (2010). Developing team skills and accomplishing team projects online. In T. Anderson (Ed.), The theory and practice of online learning (pp441-472). Edmonton, AB: AU Press, Athabasca University.
Siemens, G. (2008). Assessment of Collaborative Learning. (Vodcast). Principles of Distance Education DVD produced by Laureate Education, Inc. Baltimore.
Siemens, G. (2008). Learning Communities. (Vodcast). Principles of Distance Education DVD produced by Laureate Education, Inc. Baltimore.
Smith, L. M., (2006). Effective science tools supporting best practice methodologies in distance education. Greenwich: Distance Learning (3) 4, pp. 47-57. Retrieved from http:/proquest.umi.com.ezp.waldenulibrary.org/pqdweb?index=3&s…on September 19, 2010.
Willis, J. (2007). Preserve the child in every learner. Kappa Delta Pi Record (44)1, pp. 33-37. Retrieved from http://www.inspiringteachers.com/classroom_resources/articles/curriculum_and_instruction/preserve_the_child.html
http://i682.photobucket.com/albums/vv184/MKent48/Slide1A.jpg
Title: Science Inquiry in a Distance Education Environment:
STORYBOARD
8842 Distance Education course
Dr. Powley – Walden U
By Marlene Kent
Slide 2) http://i682.photobucket.com/albums/vv184/MKent48/Slide2A.jpg
Title: Traditional f2f recipe Biology labs
Video clip reenactment of students bored, off task, off topic, uninterested, unmotivated in a f2f teacher-directed lab situation on “The Effect of Temperature on Goldfish Respiration Homeostasis”.
Slide 3) http://i682.photobucket.com/albums/vv184/MKent48/Slide3A.jpg
Title: Inquiry Biology Homeostasis lab
Video clip of students engaged in asking questions, working in teams and designing their own inquiry lab on testing the effect of temperature on homeostasis in Goldfish respiration and behavior.
Slide 4) http://i682.photobucket.com/albums/vv184/MKent48/Slide4A.jpg
Title: Brain Neuroscience – Dopamine opens the doors
Recipe Labs: stress, boredom, confusion, low motivation, and anxiety can interfere with learning. Sensory input is blocked from entering the cortical areas of memory storage that lie beyond the amygdala
Inquiry Labs: Frontal lobe involvement
Neuronal circuits going from the limbic system (emotional center) into the frontal lobe and other parts of the brain are rich in dopamine receptors that are activated by this dopamine release (Nader et al. 2002).
Many of the strategies teachers use to engage students in learning have been demonstrated to activate this dopamine release (Wunderlich et al. 2005)
Slide 5) http://i682.photobucket.com/albums/vv184/MKent48/Slide5A.jpg
Title: Brain Neuroscience –
What turns on dopamine?
"With students' brains turned to the ideal state of activation, the speed and efficiency of information flowing through the filter to the learning centers of the brain is optimal.“ Willis, J (2007)
motivation ,
student-centered,
choices,
inquiry-based learning activities
Slide 6) http://i682.photobucket.com/albums/vv184/MKent48/Slide6A.jpg
Title: Mind Map of the Workshop
Main Topics
What is Inquiry Science & why?
Brain research?
How construct DE environment for science inquiry
Multimedia tools
Synchronous tools
Asynchronous tools
Team responsibilities
Assessments in a DE environment
Slide 7) http://i682.photobucket.com/albums/vv184/MKent48/Slide7A.jpg
Title: INQUIRY SCIENCE From f2f to DE
List of media tools for collaboration:
Asynchronous:
Wiki
Blogs
Forums
Videos – Hippocampus, Gizmos
Virtual Manipulatives - Gizmos
Synchronous:
Skype
Video conference call/Breeze
Video clip showing screen shots or video clips of:
blogs,
wikis,
skype,
virtual labs (Gizmos) on Human Homeostasis,
AP Bio video clips from Hippocampus,
Tutorials
Slide 8) http://i682.photobucket.com/albums/vv184/MKent48/Slide8A.jpg
Title: DE Assessment Strategies
Peer evaluation
Instructor Rubrics
Instructor evaluation on participation
Instructor evaluation on individual growth (improvement)
Student self-reflections
Student self-evaluation
Slide 9)http://i682.photobucket.com/albums/vv184/MKent48/Slide9A.jpg
Title: Team Developed Rubrics
Team Norms
Team Charter development and agreement
List of assignments and individual responsibilities
Time line for time management
Monitor of team process
Pre-teach activities: ExD tutorial, Homeostasis tutorial
Role-play activity with virtual lab manipulative
Individual labs with pre-agreed on procedures, collect data, share & analyze with team
Team reflection
Self-reflections
Slide 10) http://i682.photobucket.com/albums/vv184/MKent48/Slide10A.jpg
References:
Facione, P.A. (1990). The California critical thinking skills test: college level technical report #1 – experimental validation and content validity. Santa Clara Univ, CA: The CA Academic Press, pp.1-14. ERIC Document ED 327-549.
Hurst, D. & Thomas, J. (2010). Developing team skills and accomplishing team projects online. In T. Anderson (Ed.), The theory and practice of online learning (pp441-472). Edmonton, AB: AU Press, Athabasca University.
Siemens, G. (2008). Assessment of Collaborative Learning. (Vodcast). Principles of Distance Education DVD produced by Laureate Education, Inc. Baltimore.
Siemens, G. (2008). Learning Communities. (Vodcast). Principles of Distance Education DVD produced by Laureate Education, Inc. Baltimore.
Smith, L. M., (2006). Effective science tools supporting best practice methodologies in distance education. Greenwich: Distance Learning (3) 4, pp. 47-57. Retrieved from http:/proquest.umi.com.ezp.waldenulibrary.org/pqdweb?index=3&s…on September 19, 2010.
Willis, J. (2007). Preserve the child in every learner. Kappa Delta Pi Record (44)1, pp. 33-37. Retrieved from http://www.inspiringteachers.com/classroom_resources/articles/curriculum_and_instruction/preserve_the_child.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
