Reconsidering Instructional Design with Web 2.0 Technologies


Published on

2012 SITE conference presentation

Published in: Education, Technology
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Reconsidering Instructional Design with Web 2.0 Technologies

  1. 1. Reconsidering InstructionalDesign with Web 2.0 Technologies Yanyan Sun, Ohio University Jamie Smith, Ohio University Kun Li, Ohio University Fei Gao, Bowling Green State University Ke Zhang, Wayne State University
  2. 2. IntroductionPart I• Threaded Forum VS Web Annotation: Which Is Better for Online Discussion? - Yanyan Sun• Facilitating Enhanced Self, Peer and Instructor-Centered Performance Assessment with VoiceThread - Jamie Smith• Questions?Part II• Increasing Classroom Interactivity with Synchronous Chatting – Kun Li• Twitting for Learning: A Critical Analysis of Research – Fei Gao• Discussion – Ke Zhang
  3. 3. Please share questions & comments!
  4. 4. Participants & Context• Ten graduate students who enrolled in a doctoral course• Age 25-55• Self-Identified Technology Proficiency: Six intermediate users & Four experts
  5. 5. Threaded Forum VS Web Annotation:Which Is Better for Online Discussion? Yanyan Sun Department of Educational Studies Ohio University
  6. 6. Annotation A learning technique Add information to materials Building For later New review Knowledge
  7. 7. Annotation in Web 2.0 Age Digital Sticky Notes Highlighting Web Annotation Sharing Information information in the Cloud with others
  8. 8. The Values of Web Annotation in Classrooms Collaborative web annotation has positive effects on students’ learning achievements in • Different learning scenarios (Hwang, Wang, & Sharples, 2007; Su, Yang, Hwang, & Zhang,2010) • Different subject areas (Lin & Tscai, 2011; Yeh & Lo, 2009)
  9. 9. The Potential of Web Annotation to Support Online Discussion The ABILITIES TO Comment on Link the comments to other’s specific annotation locations on the posts web Support Discussions Online
  10. 10. Online Discussion Environment Threaded- Web Discussion Annotation Forum
  11. 11. Research Questions Compared to threaded discussion forum, what are the affordances and constrains of using web annotation as an online discussion tool? Compared to threaded discussion forum, what are the special features of postings in a web annotation online discussion environment?
  12. 12. Diigo
  13. 13. Research Design Diigo Sticky Notes Three Survey Diigo Tutorial Discussion & Questions Discussion Posts Analysis Forum
  14. 14. Discussion questions 1. Please locate at least one element in that you think best presents the value of American culture and explain your reasons. 2. Please locate at least one element in that you think best presents the value of Chinese culture and explain your reasons. 3. Reflecting on the materials, the discussion on Q1 & 2 and your own experience, please list three major cultural differences between China and the U.S. and explain them.
  15. 15. MeasuresMeasurements: Focus (1)General comment: comment not closely related to the specific information on the websites, but related to the topics in general; (2) Page comment: comment closely related to a specific page on the websites ; (3) Specific section comment: comment closely related to a specific section on a specific page of the websites.
  16. 16. Measurements: Knowledge ConstructionAdapted from Pena-Shaff and the colleagues’ (2001) coding scheme
  17. 17. Results: The choice of environment
  18. 18. Results: The choice of environment “If I find something useful and interesting on the webpage, I will use sticky notes. Discussion forum is a good place to reflect and summarize, while sticky notes are good for exploration.” “I use sticky notes to locate the places in question 1 while posting my discussions in discussion forum, because discussion forum has longer spaces that I can write long.”
  19. 19. Results: The choice of environment “I like stick notes. But I think I would rather use the discussion forum because it is simple, visible and easy to do. People can see where to reply to it. The sticky note is hidden and sometimes we dont know how to reply to it.” “I dont know that Ill be able to speak for every situation, but I made the above decisions because I wanted to try each option.”
  20. 20. Results: Functions of two environmentsMeans (and Standard Deviations) of Student Ratings on the Two Environments (n=10)
  21. 21. Results: Engagements
  22. 22. Results: The number and the length of the posts.
  23. 23. Results: Focus of the posts.
  24. 24. Conclusions Discussion forum were reported easier for participants to exchange ideas and to revise their understanding of the topic than sticky notes. Participants reported that they had more fun and were more actively engaged in web annotation environment. While web annotation had advantages in locating specific information on the websites and linking the websites to discussion; the discussion forum was more suitable for posting summarized discussion.
  25. 25. Please share questions & comments!
  26. 26. Facilitating Enhanced Self, Peer and Instructor-CenteredPerformance Assessment with VoiceThread Jamie Smith Department of Educational Studies Ohio University
  27. 27. Performance Assessment Performance assessment, as defined by Ainsworth and Viegut: “activity that requires students to construct a response, create a product, or perform a demonstration” (as cited in Oberg, 2009, p. 6)
  28. 28. Self Peer Instructor   Self-reflection, peer evaluation, and feedback can • empower learners • increase motivation (Watson & Robbins, 2008) Peer assessment • reinforces learning • provides a deeper level of understanding to learners (Ertmer et al., 2007 )
  29. 29. VoiceThread Text Drawing vt Audio Video
  30. 30. Research Question What are the demonstrated and perceived affordances and constraints of VoiceThread for performance assessment? • Specific features • Usage • Usefulness for learning • General Affordances & Constraints – 6 aspects • Usefulness • Ease of Use • Motivation • Engagement • Social Presence • Level of Reflection
  31. 31. Research Design • Musical Conducting Lesson (face-to-face) • Basic patterns, dynamic changes • Performance recorded, posted to VoiceThread • Intro to the application • Peer & Instructor Critiques, Self Reflection • Asynchronous, online • Self-reported perceptions • Survey • Blog posts • Interviews
  32. 32. Findings Specific Features 100.00% 90.00% 80.00% [No feature rated 70.00% Somewhat or 60.00% Highly Ineffective] 50.00% 40.00% Neutral 30.00% Somewhat Effective 20.00% Highly Effective 10.00% 0.00%
  33. 33. Findings Affordances  VoiceThread allows me to effectively… (5-point Likert scale) Mean Std. Dev. Assess my own performance 4.63 .52 Assess the performance of others 4.63 .52 Learn from peer feedback 4.5 1.41 Learn from instructor feedback 5 0 Learn from peer observation 4.38 1.06
  34. 34. Interaction “It makes sharing easy. I am able to see everybodys performance and comments, which lead to a high level of social presence.” Social Presence can enhance online interactions Significant indicator of • Student retention (Boston, Díaz, Gibson, Ice, Richardson, & Swan, 2010; Liu, Gomez, & Cherng-Jyh, 2009) • Learning (Ke, 2010; Liu, Gomez, & Cherng-Jyh, 2009) • Student satisfaction (Akyol & Garrison, 2008; Hostetter & Busch, 2006; Ke, 2010; Lin, Lin, & Laffey, 2008)
  35. 35. Cognition “By looking at the critique people left me on VT, I can see my problem that I would never notice.” “Using VoiceThread let me watch myself and peers outside of the action, so I didnt have to think about what I was doing and try to reflect at the same time. It was so much easier for me to see what I was doing on VoiceThread and separating the action from reflection helped me understand peer and instructor feedback better.” Video can facilitate performance assessment • Increase accuracy (Rapee & Hayman, 1996 ) • Provide third person perspective • Reduce cognitive load
  36. 36. Findings Constraints  • Access • Internet • Web cams • Microphones • Privacy & Data Security • Comfort Level with Use of Video
  37. 37. Discussion Perceived Actual Use Usefulness
  38. 38. Discussion 62.5% Effective 100% Effective 100.00% 88% Usage 38% Usage 90.00% 80.00% 70.00% 60.00% Neutral 50.00% Somewhat Effective 40.00% Highly Effective 30.00% Usage 20.00% 10.00% 0.00% Text commenting Video commenting
  39. 39. Conclusions & Implications • Text • 62.5% cited convenience for rationale for use (“quick & easy”) • Video • Aversion to seeing one’s self on video • Re-recording time • Access issues Perceived Cost vs. Benefit of Features – Implications of Social Exchange Theory for tool selection.
  40. 40. Conclusions & Implications • VoiceThread lends itself well to the facilitation and enhancement of self, peer, and instructor-centered performance assessment • Social presence • Third person perspective • Visual markup • Ease of Use & Usefulness • Access & privacy considerations • Scaffolding or modeling of critique process is recommended • Further studies are necessary across multiple contexts
  41. 41. Please share questions & comments!
  42. 42. Increasing Classroom Interactivity with Synchronous Chatting Kun Li Department of Educational Studies Ohio University
  43. 43. Classroom Interactivity • Classroom interaction is often prevented by lecturing (Liu, Wang, Liang, Chan, & Yang, 2002). • Physical gestures as cues of classroom interaction—not guaranteed (Jaffee, 2002).
  44. 44. Using ICT to Enhance Interactivity • Using Information Communication Technology (ICT) to enhance classroom interactivity (Scornavacca, Huff, & Marshall, 2009; Draper & Brown, 2004; Market et al., 2006).
  45. 45. Gabbly Private Embed into Chat Room Webpages Gabbly Chat room is a small Online window, no need to application, no need switch windows to download programs
  46. 46. Embed Gabbly into Webpages
  47. 47. Research Design • Research Question 1. Whether synchronous chat tools could enhance classroom interactivity. 2. What are participants’ perceptions of using synchronous chatting in class?
  48. 48. Research Design • Instrument  Chat history  An online survey using five point Likert Scale questions and open-ended questions to measure participants’ self-reported perception of using Gabbly.
  49. 49. Results—Chat History Time Messages Participants Message contents Before 12 7 Greetings like “greetings”, “hi” instructi on During 69 10 Thoughts like “Yoga can save me from and being a hunchback”. after Questions like “Can you take a Tai Chi instructi course at the university?”. on Answers like “You can take Tai Chi in Ping”. Replies like “Me, too, ** (name)”. Evaluations like “Cool site”. Moods like “Hahahha” “”
  50. 50. Results—Survey • Eight participants reported they engaged in the class to some extent. • Nine participants reported they interacted with the whole class to some extent. • Eight participants reported Gabbly was fun to use. • All participants reported Gabbly was easy to use.
  51. 51. Results—Survey • Open-ended questions showed four themes 1. Distraction (Mentioned by Four)  I think it was a little distracting because I kept looking at it to see if anyone wrote something when I should have been listening to Karen.  They were fun but very distracting. Im glad I wasnt assessed on my learning via a formal quiz...I would not have performed well because I was playing with the technology instead of learning with it.
  52. 52. Results—Survey • Open-ended questions showed four themes: 2. Relaxing Environment (Mentioned by Eight)  [..]chatting on gabbly was a lot of funnnn! Cant stop laughing. It was a little distractive but at least keep me live, not drowsy! [...] anyways, we had a lot of fun today!!!  I was excited to learn through this method. This tool created edutainment.
  53. 53. Results—Survey • Open-ended questions showed four themes: 3. Interactive Platform (Mentioned by Three)  I think it was a great way to ask you questions and you were able to read them at your convinced.  [...]but it was also a good place to ask questions, particularly if we didnt want to interrupt the class or talk out loud to answer. Also, anyone could answer the questions, so it wasnt limited to asking only the teacher.
  54. 54. Results—Survey • Open-ended questions showed four themes: 4. Promote or Prohibit Learning (Mentioned by Four)  Gabbly both facilitates yet inhibits learning. Its nice to be able to ask a question at any given time, but there was a lot of nonsense talking going on.  I think it may be able to promote learning in some situations, but it was difficult to use with so many people at once. It seemed we accomplished the task and then we just started goofing off.
  55. 55. Discussion • Easy to use. • Fun to use, a positive effect on social relationships (Weisz et al., 2007) • May prohibit learning due to the distracting effects. • Some class activities designed for the tool.
  56. 56. Please share questions & comments!
  57. 57. Twitting for LearningA Critical Analysis of Research Fei Gao & Ke Zhang
  58. 58. Microblogging in Education
  59. 59. Microblogging in Education
  60. 60. Inclusion Criteria 1. Research must focus on microblogging tools in educational settings. 2. Research must be empirical studies reporting data derived from actual observations or experimentations. 3. Research must report some data that evaluated the effectiveness of the microblogging-based activities.
  61. 61. Analysis of the StudiesEighteen articles were identified. settings participants sample size durations of intervention educational practices data types educational effects
  62. 62. Results Educational Practices Educational Benefits Who is participating Learning community When learning takes place Participation and Engagement What is learned Reflective thinking How learning occurs Collaborative learning Challenges Nature of Research Unfamiliarity with the tool Settings and participants Information overload Sample sizes 140 character limit Duration of Intervention Research Type and Data Type
  63. 63. Educational Practices
  64. 64. Educational Practices Who Is Participating Examples References Enabling Immediate backchannel in live Elavsky et al.,2011; Participation events Ross, et al., 2011 Inviting Virtual authentic language Borau, et al., 2009 Participation activities Antenos-Conforti, 2009 When Learning Takes Place Examples References Documenting sharing teaching Wright, 2010 Ongoing Processes experience Sustaining Interaction communication beyond Lowe & Laffey, 2011; and Communication the classroom Rinaldo et al., 2011
  65. 65. Educational Practices What Is Learned Examples References Expanding the Bringing in real world Rinaldo et al., 2011 Learning Content information/ news How Learning Occurs Examples References Fostering Interactive synchronous class Perifanou, 2009; Learning Activities learning activities McWilliams et al., 2011 Encouraging Informal discussions on Holotescu & Grosseck, Learning proposed themes 2009
  66. 66. Benefits and Challenges Benefits Challenges Enabling collaborative learning Unfamiliarity with the technology Forming a sense of learning Information overload community Increasing participation and 140 character limit engagement Encouraging reflective thinking
  67. 67. Nature of Research
  68. 68. Nature of Research
  69. 69. Nature of Research
  70. 70. Future Research
  71. 71. Discussion
  72. 72. Please share questions & comments!