• Share
  • Email
  • Embed
  • Like
  • Save
  • Private Content
Effective Discussion and web 2.0 tools
 

Effective Discussion and web 2.0 tools

on

  • 411 views

MET Link presentation

MET Link presentation
November 2011
UNO

Statistics

Views

Total Views
411
Views on SlideShare
411
Embed Views
0

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
0
Comments
0

0 Embeds 0

No embeds

Accessibility

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Microsoft PowerPoint

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

    Effective Discussion and web 2.0 tools Effective Discussion and web 2.0 tools Presentation Transcript

    • CREATING A BRIDGE BETWEEN EFFECTIVE DISCUSSION AND WEB 2.0 TOOLSWendy GrojeanCollege of EducationIDEAS Room Coordinatorwgrojean@unomaha.edu
    • “Replace a paper and pencil with a laptop andonline discussion and you may find that even themost reserved students are strong writingcontributors. It is not the student. It is the tool.Find the right technological tool and writing nowbecomes fun, rather than a chore” (Rosen, 2010).
    • GOALS OF ONLINE DISCUSSION-Add depth to in-class discussion-Give voice to quiet students-Engage students throughout reading and writingprocess-Others?
    • ONLINE DISCUSSION TOOLSBlogWikiOthers?
    • GOALS VS. TOOL-Your goals need to stay at the forefront.-The tool must not be BIGGER than your goals-If the tool or assessment is toocomplicated, students spend more time navigatingthe tool than the content.
    • BLOGS VS. WIKICommunication & Discussion Body of knowledgeOne to many-Teacher control Many to manyTime sensitive & in-the-moment Stable and lastingNews story Encyclopedia
    • GET TO KNOW YOUR TOOLS…TumblrBloggerEdublogsGoogleDocsWikis-Google Sites & WikispacesWhat have you used?
    • TOOLS & PEDAGOGYTools are not effective without good pedagogy.Eight Tips for Facilitating Effective OnlineDiscussion Forums
    • EXAMPLES OF EXPECTATIONS1. The Do’s and Don’t of Online Communication –Collaborize Classroom2. The Core Rules of Netiquette-Albion.com3. Netiquette Guidelines-Paradigm Publishing4. What expectations do you communicate withstudents?
    • GOOD QUESTIONING -Eliminates plagiarism -Facilitates good discussion -Leads to Higher-Order thinking and analysis
    • QUESTIONING RESOURCESMcKenzie “Questioning Tool Kit” Jamie Mckenzie questioning research article: "Questioning as Technology” New Blooms Taxonomy “Bloom’s Taxonomy Blooms Digitally” Kathy Schrock’s Bloomin’ Google
    • ASSESSMENT OF DISCUSSIONSRubricsParticipation PointsWhat have you done? What works for you?
    • RUBRIC RESOURCESSample Rubric –University of PittsburghTips and Rubrics-Middle Tennessee StateUniversityRubric example-University of Wisconsin-StoutWhat type/style of rubrics work for you?
    • REFERENCESChristopher, M., Thomas, J., & Tallent-Runnels, M. (2004, Spring). Raising the bar: Encouraging high level thinking in online discussion forums. Roeper Review, 26(3), 166-171. Retrieved from Teacher Reference Center database.Discussion board tips and pedagogy [Information Sheet]. (n.d.). Retrieved September 7, 2011, from Middle Tennessee State University website: http://frank.mtsu.edu/~webctsup/faculty/manual/ WebCT_DiscussionBoard_Tips-Pedagogy.pdfFrey, B. (n.d.). Rubric for asynchronous discussion participation [Rubric]. Retrieved September 9, 2011, from http://www.udel.edu/janet/MARC2006/ ric.htmlIm, Y., & Lee, O. (2003-2004, Winter). Pedagogical implications of online discussion for preservice teacher training. Journal of Research Technology in Education, 36(2), 155-170. Retrieved from Teacher Reference Center database.McKenzie, J. (1997, November/December). A questioning tookit. From Now On: The Educational Technology Journal, 7(3). Retrieved from http://fno.org/nov97/ toolkit.htmlMcKenzie, J. (2003, April). Questioning as technology. From Now On: TheEducational Technology Journal. Retrieved fromhttp://questioning.org/qtech.html
    • REFERENCES (CONT’D)Nielsen, L. E. (2010). Discussion rubric for online class [Rubric]. Retrieved September 9, 2011, from University of Wisconsin-Stout website: www2.uwstout.edu/content/profdev/rubrics/discussionrubric.htmlOwens, R. (2009, July 23). Eight tips for facilitating effective online discussion forums. Faculty Focus. Retrieved from http://www.facultyfocus.com/ articles/asynchronous-learning-and-trends/eight-tips-for-facilitating- effective-online-discussion-forums/Revised Bloom’s Taxonomy [Guide]. (n.d.). Retrieved September 7, 2011, from Wayne County Schools website: http://www.waynecountyschools.org/147210622111220523/lib/ 147210622111220523/Revised_Blooms_Info.pdfRosen, L. D., Ph.D. (2010). Rewired. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.Ross, S. (2011). The core rules of netiquette [Guidelines]. Retrieved September 10, 2011, from Albion website: http://www.albion.com/netiquette/ corerules.html
    • REFERENCES (CONT’D)Rutkosky, N., & Seguin, D. (n.d.). Following netiquette guidelines [Guidelines]. Retrieved September 7, 2011, from Paradigm Publishing website: http://www.emcp.com/college_resource_centers/listonline.php? GroupID=6168Tucker, C. (n.d.). The do’s and don’ts of online student communication [Guidelines]. Retrieved September 8, 2011, from Collaborize Classroom website: www.wecollaborize.com/pdf/student- communication-online.pdf