Collaborative learning activity involves learners working together in order to complete a task. Collaboration increases the opportunities a student has to use the target language, and thereby develop their skills in it. Employ teaching and learning strategies and collaborative activities in your classroom and be an innovative teacher.
Collaborative learning activity involves learners working together in order to complete a task. Collaboration increases the opportunities a student has to use the target language, and thereby develop their skills in it. Employ teaching and learning strategies and collaborative activities in your classroom and be an innovative teacher.
This presentation includes the most important features of the transformative curriculum proposed by Henderson and Hathowrne. It also includes a practical activity I designed for EFL teachers to see how the 3 kinds of learning can be promoted.
Collaborative learning and cooperative learning.mineNoura Al-Budeiwi
This article describes the differences and similarities of collaborative and cooperative learning. It also discusses their usage for young learners. Please add your own ideas and thoughts in the comment section.
This presentation includes the most important features of the transformative curriculum proposed by Henderson and Hathowrne. It also includes a practical activity I designed for EFL teachers to see how the 3 kinds of learning can be promoted.
Collaborative learning and cooperative learning.mineNoura Al-Budeiwi
This article describes the differences and similarities of collaborative and cooperative learning. It also discusses their usage for young learners. Please add your own ideas and thoughts in the comment section.
An instructional designer’s job involves continual learning, unlearning and relearning, be it new technology, design methods, design strategies, etc. An ID’s objective is to help people learn by engaging them through the courses created.
Progettazione Collaborativa di Scenari di Apprendimento/InsegnamentoMETIS-project
Seminario pratico per esplorare gli strumenti e le tecniche per la progettazione di efficaci attività di apprendimento collaborativo online.
Il programma METIS è stato finanziato grazie al sostegno della Commissione Europea. Questa pubblicazione è di proprietà dell’autore, e la Commissione non è responsabile per gli utilizzi delle informazioni in essa contenute.
Collaborative Design of Teaching ScenariosMETIS-project
A hands-on workshop exploring tools and techniques for designing successful online collaborative learning activities for vocational training.
This workshop has been created by the Metis Project, and it is one of three workshop structures that have been developed for different educational sectors across Europe. You will use several paper-prototyping tools and the Integrated Learning Design Environment (ILDE), a bespoke environment for the co-design of learning, developed by the Metis Project. The ILDE aims to support practitioners in completing the "learning design" lifecycle from conceptualising designs to deploying them in virtual learning environments (VLEs) for enactment and eventual redesign. In particular, you will use WebCollage, an online tool specifically designed to assist you in creating collaborative learning activities ready to run in a VLE. The overall design of this workshop is based on a meta-design template produced by the Metis project http://metis-project.org/.
Education 2.0: Leveraging Collaborative Tools for TeachingJean-Claude Bradley
Jean-Claude Bradley presents at the Drexel E-Learning 2.0 Conference on March 25, 2010. The talk covers the educational uses of screencasting, wikis, blogs, games, Google Spreadsheets and Second Life.
Slides from my talk on the things I've learned by comparing the collaborative process as it is carried out in many modern organizations to the creative process of artists and makers.
Online collaborative learning with audiencefeedbackAndrea Stone
Online course quality measures recommend student interaction and group activities, but these can be difficult. This session offers strategies for facilitation of online group work.
Continuous, collaborative learning: making it work for your orgCammy Bean
Presentation by Cammy Bean of Kineo on June 6, 2013. What is continuous, collaborative learning? How can you make it work with your organization? This webinar was hosted by Citrix/GoToTraining and Training Magazine.
Presentation given at Unitec, New Zealand.
Please cite as: Owen, H. (2008). Promoting Blended Approaches to Teaching and Learning at Unitec: A Proposal. Auckland: Unitec New Zealand.
Taking evidence-based professional learning conversations online: Implicatio...mddhani
Presented in one of the parallel sessions during the 15th International Conference on Education 2010 at Universiti Brunei Darussalam.
Presenter/courtesy of Michael Moroney, Lecturer, Universiti Brunei Darussalam.
Presented in one of the parallel sessions during the 15th International Conference on Education 2010 at Universiti Brunei Darussalam.
Presenter/courtesy of Michael Moroney, Lecturer, Universiti Brunei Darussalam.
NATIONAL FORUM JOURNALS (Founded 1982 (www.nationalforum.com) is a group of national and international refereed journals. NFJ publishes articles on colleges, universities and schools; management, business and administration; academic scholarship, multicultural issues; schooling; special education; teaching and learning; counseling and addiction; alcohol and drugs; crime and criminology; disparities in health; risk behaviors; international issues; education; organizational theory and behavior; educational leadership and supervision; action and applied research; teacher education; race, gender, society; public school law; philosophy and history; psychology, sociology, and much more. Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Editor-in-Chief.
Synthetic Fiber Construction in lab .pptxPavel ( NSTU)
Synthetic fiber production is a fascinating and complex field that blends chemistry, engineering, and environmental science. By understanding these aspects, students can gain a comprehensive view of synthetic fiber production, its impact on society and the environment, and the potential for future innovations. Synthetic fibers play a crucial role in modern society, impacting various aspects of daily life, industry, and the environment. ynthetic fibers are integral to modern life, offering a range of benefits from cost-effectiveness and versatility to innovative applications and performance characteristics. While they pose environmental challenges, ongoing research and development aim to create more sustainable and eco-friendly alternatives. Understanding the importance of synthetic fibers helps in appreciating their role in the economy, industry, and daily life, while also emphasizing the need for sustainable practices and innovation.
Unit 8 - Information and Communication Technology (Paper I).pdfThiyagu K
This slides describes the basic concepts of ICT, basics of Email, Emerging Technology and Digital Initiatives in Education. This presentations aligns with the UGC Paper I syllabus.
Honest Reviews of Tim Han LMA Course Program.pptxtimhan337
Personal development courses are widely available today, with each one promising life-changing outcomes. Tim Han’s Life Mastery Achievers (LMA) Course has drawn a lot of interest. In addition to offering my frank assessment of Success Insider’s LMA Course, this piece examines the course’s effects via a variety of Tim Han LMA course reviews and Success Insider comments.
Embracing GenAI - A Strategic ImperativePeter Windle
Artificial Intelligence (AI) technologies such as Generative AI, Image Generators and Large Language Models have had a dramatic impact on teaching, learning and assessment over the past 18 months. The most immediate threat AI posed was to Academic Integrity with Higher Education Institutes (HEIs) focusing their efforts on combating the use of GenAI in assessment. Guidelines were developed for staff and students, policies put in place too. Innovative educators have forged paths in the use of Generative AI for teaching, learning and assessments leading to pockets of transformation springing up across HEIs, often with little or no top-down guidance, support or direction.
This Gasta posits a strategic approach to integrating AI into HEIs to prepare staff, students and the curriculum for an evolving world and workplace. We will highlight the advantages of working with these technologies beyond the realm of teaching, learning and assessment by considering prompt engineering skills, industry impact, curriculum changes, and the need for staff upskilling. In contrast, not engaging strategically with Generative AI poses risks, including falling behind peers, missed opportunities and failing to ensure our graduates remain employable. The rapid evolution of AI technologies necessitates a proactive and strategic approach if we are to remain relevant.
Introduction to AI for Nonprofits with Tapp NetworkTechSoup
Dive into the world of AI! Experts Jon Hill and Tareq Monaur will guide you through AI's role in enhancing nonprofit websites and basic marketing strategies, making it easy to understand and apply.
Acetabularia Information For Class 9 .docxvaibhavrinwa19
Acetabularia acetabulum is a single-celled green alga that in its vegetative state is morphologically differentiated into a basal rhizoid and an axially elongated stalk, which bears whorls of branching hairs. The single diploid nucleus resides in the rhizoid.
Operation “Blue Star” is the only event in the history of Independent India where the state went into war with its own people. Even after about 40 years it is not clear if it was culmination of states anger over people of the region, a political game of power or start of dictatorial chapter in the democratic setup.
The people of Punjab felt alienated from main stream due to denial of their just demands during a long democratic struggle since independence. As it happen all over the word, it led to militant struggle with great loss of lives of military, police and civilian personnel. Killing of Indira Gandhi and massacre of innocent Sikhs in Delhi and other India cities was also associated with this movement.
Adversarial Attention Modeling for Multi-dimensional Emotion Regression.pdf
From Research to Practice: The Instructional Design of Online Collaborative Learning
1. From Research to Practice:The Instructional Design of Online Collaborative Learning Laurie Posey, EdD Director of Instructional Technology for the Health Sciences Programs The George Washington University posey@gwu.edu Sloan-C International Conference on Online Learning October 28-30, 2009
2. Definitions Online Collaborative Learning refers to activities that challenge learners in distributed locations to work interdependently to achieve a shared learning goal. Goes beyond cooperative learning by emphasizing cognitive diversity, critical dialogue & joint knowledge construction. A subset of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning (Koschmann, 2002). A type of Community of Inquiry (Archer, Garrison, Anderson & Rourke, 2001).
3. Sound Familiar? Working collaboratively online is very difficult due to travel and personal schedules. Most of us are professionals who work in a team setting. I find these assignments to be completely ineffective learning tools. One of our team members was unresponsive, difficult to reach and generally had no contribution to the project. The timeframe was too short to sort out personalities, strengths, and weaknesses in addition to understanding, prioritizing and focusing issues. I felt like I was helping others get an A on the assignment.
4. Common Challenges Student apathy and hostility toward group work Difficulties with group selection Lack of essential group-work skills The free-rider Inequalities in student abilities Appropriate assessment of individuals within a group Roberts, T. S. & McInnerney, J. M. (2007). Seven problems of online group learning (and their solutions). Educational Technology & Society, 10(4), 257-268.
5. Why Bother? Dialog and dissonance during OCL foster transformative learning. Collaboration competency can be learned through experience and practice. The world needs good collaborators.
6. Design Considerations Technology Selection Activity Design Group Formation Team Building Scaffolding & Facilitation Learner Assessment
7. Design Considerations KEY FINDINGS Technology Selection Utility is key. Provide the functions learners need. (Kirschner, Strijbos, Kreijns & Beers, 2004) Lack of verbal cues can inhibit relationship building.(Hishina, Okada & Suzuki, 2005) Synchronous communications enhance social presence and facilitate trust-building, information seeking, and conflict resolution. (Havard, Du, & Xu, 2008). Asynchronous communication facilitates reflection and independent research.(Clark & Mayer, 2008) Learners have the capacity to choose communication vehicles wisely.(Thomas & MacGregor, 2005; Cawthon & Harris, 2007) Social technologies can provide for more natural conversation and community building than traditional LMSs.(Rollett, Lux, Strohmaier & Dosinger, 2007) Activity Design Group Formation Team Building Scaffolding & Facilitation Learner Assessment
10. Provide education and support to ensure that students (a) know how to use available technologies; and (b) recognize the unique benefits of each as it relates to OCL.
11. Allow and encourage students to choose the best technology for the task at hand.
12. Take advantage of evolving Web 2.0 technologies to support collaboration (e.g., blogs, wikis, instant messaging, social networking, video chat, virtual worlds, etc.).Activity Design Group Formation Team Building Scaffolding & Facilitation Learner Assessment
13. Design Considerations KEY FINDINGS Technology Selection OCL around ill-structured problems promotes critical thinking, evaluation of alternatives, recognition of uncertainties, correction of misconceptions, and information seeking to resolve conflicts (Ge and Land, 2004; Reiser, 2002; Jonassen and Remidez, 2002). Designers of OCL must consider the interactions among educational, social, and technology processes, including task ownership, task character, and task control (Kirschner, Strijbos, Kreijns & Beers, 2004) Providing advance instructions to prepare students for OCL can contribute to a more successful collaborative process (Ge, Yamashiro, & Lee, 2000). Structured assignments including clear instructions and role assignments maximize the benefits of collaborative work and influence learning outcomes(Clark and Mayer, 2008). Activity Design Group Formation Team Building Scaffolding & Facilitation Learner Assessment
17. Carefully structure activities to facilitate the collaborative process and keep learners moving productively toward a successful outcome.Activity Design Group Formation Team Building Scaffolding & Facilitation Learner Assessment
18. Design Considerations KEY FINDINGS Technology Selection When given a choice, students are likely to team with friends from similar backgrounds (Roberts & McInnerney, 2007) Mixed groups of active and reflective learners engaged in more critical discourse than homogenous groups (Lee, 2008). Heterogenous groups of introverted an extroverted learners exhibited higher conflict and lower task sharing than homogenous groups, with no notable difference in team performance (Hsu, Chou, Hwang & Chou, 2008). Diversity within teams creates a tension that can either support or inhibit the collaborative process (Posey, 2007). Small teams of 3-5 students are more cohesive and most productive (Williams, Duray & Reddy, 2006; Colwell & Jenks, 2004; Clark and Mayer, 2008). Activity Design Group Formation Team Building Scaffolding & Facilitation Learner Assessment
19.
20. Encourage learners to become aware of, and reflect on, the personality and/or learning style make-up of group members and its influence on group process.
21. Use small group sizes (3-4 students per group).Activity Design Group Formation Team Building Scaffolding & Facilitation Learner Assessment
22. Design Considerations KEY FINDINGS Technology Selection Regular interaction among team members contributes to trust, community building and team performance (Bulu & Yildirim, 2008, Orvis & Lassiter, 2007; Thomas & MacGregor, 2005). Diversity of both personality and abilities can have a positive impact on group creativity and judgment; personality differences can cause conflict and cohesion problems (Levi, 2001). Perceived inequities in ability and level of trust negatively impacts trust and team cohesion (Posey, 2007; Cawthon & Harris, 2007); can be overcome when teams share a mutual definition of collaboration and common sense of purpose (Havard et al, 2008). Providing team members with pre-defined, functional roles can contribute to individual accountability and positive interdependence within collaborative teams (Kirschner et al., 2004). Activity Design Group Formation Team Building Scaffolding & Facilitation Learner Assessment
26. Specify a process for mediation and resolution of interpersonal/teamwork problems (e.g., personality conflicts, lack of participation).
27. Require evidence of participation and specify consequences for non-participation.Activity Design Group Formation Team Building Scaffolding & Facilitation Learner Assessment
28. Design Considerations KEY FINDINGS Technology Selection Instructors can play an important role in moving students beyond socialization and resource sharing by facilitating critical discourse, co-construction of meaning, and ill-structured problem solving (Murphy, 2004; Littleton and Whitelock, 2005, Ge and Land, 2004). New online learners may need guidance in the development of group process skills (Resta & Lafierriére, 2007, Brooke 2007); and using communication technologies effectively (Bulu & Yildirim, 2008). Up front observation of effective communication skills and examples of effective collaboration can improve OCL outcomes (Cawthon & Harris, 2007; Rummel & Spada 2005). Structured technology-based systems that making the process of collaboration explicit can improve collaboration (Lee & Kim, 2005; Kirschner et al, 2004). Requiring students to categorize their posts did not impact knowledge gains and reduced the number of challenges to arguments (Jeong & Juong, 2007). Activity Design Group Formation Team Building Scaffolding & Facilitation Learner Assessment
29.
30. Provide teams with a structured set of prompts and questions designed to stimulate elaboration and critical thinking and guide collaborative problem-solving.
31. Provide opportunities for students to learn about and practice collaboration in advance of more formal OCL.
32. Be a guide on the side; monitor team processes and intercede only when input is needed to help move students toward deeper levels of collaboration.
34. Be an advocate for collaboration; emphasize its educational benefits.Activity Design Group Formation Team Building Scaffolding & Facilitation Learner Assessment
35. Design Considerations KEY FINDINGS Technology Selection Requiring students to submit their contributions for individual evaluation promoted greater levels of participation.(Macdonald, 2003) . “Collaborative assignments should be assessed collaboratively” integrating self, peer and instructor evaluations (Palloff, Pratt & Palloff , 2007). Peer grading can help to motivate all participants to complete their share of the work; students need guidance in providing appropriate, valuable feedback (Colwell & Jenks, 2004). Collaborative exams can increase interaction among students and positively impact perceived learning (Shen, Hiltz & Bieber, 2006) Formative assessment of collaboration in the form of group portfolios can support student reflection and improve learning outcomes (Van Aalst & Chan, 2007) Activity Design Group Formation Team Building Scaffolding & Facilitation Learner Assessment
36. Design Considerations RECOMMENDATIONS Technology Selection Use formative assessment to reveal opportunities for facilitation and scaffolding. Take a 360 degree approach to collaborative learning assessment, integrating individual, peer and instructor evaluations. Consider using collaborative assessments as a teaching and learning activity, rather than just for evaluation. Use tiered rubrics to guide and measure student achievement of expectations. Activity Design Group Formation Team Building Scaffolding & Facilitation Learner Assessment
37. Closing thoughts… Research is limited, varied and evolving. Recommendations are not rules…consider your unique educational goals and context, and evolve your own approaches through experience and reflective practice. Questions?
38. References Alfonseca, E., Carro, R. M., Martín, E., Ortigosa, A. & Paredes, P. (2006). The impact of learning styles on student grouping for collaborative learning: A case study. User Modeling and User - Adapted Interaction, 16(3-4), 377. Archer, W., Garrison, D. R., Anderson, T. & Rourke, L. (2001). A framework for analyzing critical thinking in computer conferences. Paper presented at EURO-CSCL 2001, Maastricht, Netherlands. Ashcraft & Treadwell (2007). The Social Psychology of Online Collaborative Learning: The Good, the Bad, and the Awkward. In K. L. Orvis, & A. L. R. Lassiter (Eds.), Computer-supported collaborative learning: Best practices and principles for instructors (pp. 141-161). Hershey, PA: IGI. Brooke, S. L. (2007). The case method and collaborative learning. In K. L. Orvis, & A. L. R. Lassiter (Eds.), Computer-supported collaborative learning: Best practices and principles for instructors (pp. 66-88). Hershey, PA: IGI. Bulu, S. T. & Yildirim, Z. (2008). Communication behaviors and trust in collaborative online teams. Educational Technology & Society, 11(1), 132-147. Cawthon, S. W. & Harris, A. L. (2007). Developing a community of practice in an online research lab. In K. L. Orvis, & A. L. R. Lassiter (Eds.), Computer-supported collaborative learning: Best practices and principles for instructors (pp. 41-65). Hershey, PA: IGI. Clark, R. C. & Mayer, R. E. (2008). E-learning and the science of instruction: Proven guidelines for consumers and designers of multimedia learning. San Francisco, CA: Pfeiffer. Colwell, J. L. & Jenks, C. F. (2004). Using peer evaluations and teams in online classes.
39. References Cox, B. & Cox, B. (2008). Developing interpersonal and group dynamics through asynchronous threaded discussions: The use of discussion board in collaborative learning. Education, 128(4), 553. De Laat, M. & Lally, V. (2004). It's not so easy: Researching the complexity of emergent participant roles and awareness in asynchronous networked learning discussions. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 20(3), 165-171. Gardner, D. B. (1998). Effects of conflict types and power use among health professionals in interdisciplinary team collaboration. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, George Mason University. Gardner, D. B. (2005). Ten lessons in collaboration. Online Journal of Issues in Nursing. 10(1). Retrieved July 10, 2005, from http://www.nursingworld.org/ojin/topic26/ tpc26_1.htm. Garrison, D. R. (2003). Cognitive presence for effective asynchronous online learning: The role of reflective inquiry, self-direction and metacognition. In J. Bourne & J. C. Moore (Eds.), Elements of quality in online education: Practice and direction (pp. 47-58), Needham, MA: The Sloan Consortium. Ge, X. & Land, S. M. (2004). A conceptual framework for scaffolding ill-structured problem-solving processes using question prompts and peer interactions. Educational Technology Research and Development, 52(2), 5-22. Ge, X., Yamashiro, K. A., & Lee, J. (2000). Pre-class planning to scaffold students for online collaborative learning activities. Educational Technology & Society 3(3). Retrieved September 16, 2006, from http://ifets.ieee.org/periodical/vol_3_2000/b02 .html
40. References Gokhale, A. A. (1995). Collaborative learning enhances critical thinking. Journal of Technology Education, 7(1), 1-8. Retrieved June 15, 2005, from http://scholar .lib.vt.edu/ejournals/JTE/jte-v7n1/gokhale.jte-v7n1.html Grabinger, S. & Dunlap, J. (2002). Applying the REAL model to web-based instruction: An overview. In P. Barker, & S. Rebelsky (Eds.), Proceedings of world conference on educational multimedia, hypermedia and telecommunications 2002 (pp. 447-452). Chesapeake, VA: AACE. Havard, B., Du, J. & Xu, J. (2008). Online collaborative learning and communication media. Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 19(1), 37. Heinemann, G. D. & Zeiss, A. M. (2002). Team performance in health care : Assessment and development. New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers. Hemmi, A., Bayne, S., & Land, R. (2009). The appropriation and repurposing of social technologies in higher education. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 25(1), 19-30. Hishina, M., Okada, R. & Suzuki, K. (2005). Group formation for web-based collaborative learning with personality information. International Journal on ELearning, 4(3), 351. Hsu, J. L., Chou, H.W., Hwang, W.Y., & Chou, S.B. (2008). A two-dimension process in explaining learners’ collaborative behaviors in CSCL. Educational Technology and Society, 11(4), 66-80. Jeong, A. & Joung, S. (2007). Scaffolding collaborative argumentation in asynchronous discussions with message constraints and message labels. Computers and Education, 48(3), 427-445. Jeong, A. & Lee, J. (2008). The effects of active versus reflective learning style on the processes of critical discourse in computer-supported collaborative argumentation. British Journal of Educational Technology, 39(4), 651-665.
41. References Heinemann, G. D. & Zeiss, A. M. (Eds.). (2002). Team performance in health care: Assessment and development. New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers. Johnson, D.W. and Johnson, R.T., 1990. Cooperative learning and achievement. In: Sharan, S. (Ed.), Cooperative Learning: Theory and Research (pp. 23–37). NY: Praeger. Jonassen, D. H. & Remidez, R. (2002). Mapping alternative discourse structures onto computer conferences. In G. Stahl (Ed.), Computer support for collaborative learning: Foundations for a CSCL Community. Proceedings of CSCL 2002 (pp. 237-244). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Kirschner, P., Strijbos, J. W., Kreijns, K. & Beers, P. J. (2004). Designing electronic collaborative learning environments. Educational Technology Research and Development, 52(3), 47-66. Koschmann, T. (2002). Dewey’s contribution to the foundations of CSCL research. In G. Stahl (Ed.), Computer support for collaborative learning: Foundations for a CSCL community. proceedings of CSCL 2002 (pp. 17-22). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Lee, M. & Kim, D. (2005). The effects of the collaborative representation supporting tool on problem-solving processes and outcomes in web-based collaborative problem-based learning (PBL) environments. Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 16(3), 273. Levi, D. (2001). Group dynamics for teams. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Littleton, K. & Whitelock, D. (2005). The negotiation and co-construction of meaning and understanding within a postgraduate online learning community. Learning, Media and Technology, 30(2), 147-164. Macdonald, J. (2003). Assessing online collaborative learning: Process and product. Computers and Education, 40(4), 377-391. Mandle, H. & Kraus, U. (2003). Learning competence for the knowledge society. In N. Nistor, S. English, S. Wheeler & M. Jalabeanu (Eds.), Toward the virtual university: International online perspectives (pp. 65-86). Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.
42. References Meyer, K. A. (2003). Face-to-face versus threaded discussions: The role of time and higher-order thinking. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 7(3), 55-65. Retrieved July 20, 2005, from http://www.sloan-c.org/publications/jaln/v7n3/pdf/v7n3_meyer.pdf Mezirow, J. (2000). Learning to think like an adult: Core concepts of transformation theory. Learning as transformation: Critical perspectives on a theory in progress (pp. 3-34). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers. Moving From Theory to Practice in the Design of Web-Based Learning From the Perspective of Constructivism. (2003). Murphy, E. Journal of Interactive Online Learning, 2009 (April 10) Retrieved from http://www.ncolr.org/jiol/issues/PDF/1.4.4.pdf Muehlenbrock, M. (2006). Learning group formation based on learner profile and context. International Journal on ELearning, 5(1), 19. Murphy, E. (2004). Recognising and promoting collaboration in an online asynchronous discussion. British Journal of Educational Technology, 35(4), 421-431. Nel, L. & Wilkinson, A. (2006). Enhancing collaborative learning in a blended learning environment: Applying a process planning model. Systemic Practice and Action Research, 19(6), 553-576. Orvis, K. L. & Lassiter, A. L. R. (2008). Computer-supported collaborative learning: Best practices and principles for instructors. Hershey, PA: Information Science Publishing. Palloff, R. M. & Pratt, K. (2007). Building online learning communities: Effective strategies for the virtual classroom (2nd ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Payne, C. R. & Reinhart, C. J. (2008). Can we talk? course management software and the construction of knowledge. On the Horizon, 16(1), 34. Posey, L, (2007). Critical thinking and collaboration in online health professional education. Applied Dissertation, Fischler School of Human Resources and Education, Nova Southeastern University.
43. References Reiser, B. J. (2002). Why scaffolding should sometimes make tasks more difficult for learners. In G. Stahl (Ed.), Computer support for collaborative learning: Foundations for a CSCL community. Proceedings of CSCL 2002 (pp. 255-264). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Resta, P. & Laferrière, T. (2007). Technology in support of collaborative learning. Educational Psychology Review, 19(1), 65-83. Rienzo, T. & Han, B. (2009). Microsoft or Google Web 2.0 Tools for Course Management. Journal of Information Systems Education, 20(2) 123-127. Roberts, T. S. (2005). Computer-supported collaborative learning in higher education. Information Management, 18(1/2), 11. Roberts, T. S. & McInnerney, J. M. (2007). Seven problems of online group learning (and their solutions). Educational Technology & Society, 10(4), 257-268. Rollett, H., Lux, M., Strohmaier, M., & Dosinger, G. (2007). The web 2.0 way of learning with technologies. International Journal of Learning Technology, 3(1), 87-107. Rummel, N. & Spada, H. (2005). Learning to collaborate: An instructional approach to promoting collaborative problem solving in computer-mediated settings. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 14(2), 201-241. Senge, P. M. (1990). The fifth discipline the art and practice of the learning organization. Burnsville, Minn.: ChartHouse International Learning Corporation. Shen, J., Hiltz, S. R. & Bieber, M. (2006). Collaborative online examinations: Impacts on interaction, learning, and student satisfaction. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics Part A:Systems and Humans, 36(6), 1045-1053.
44. References Sitzmann, T., Ely, K. & Wisher, R. (2007). Designing web-based training courses to maximize learning. In K. L. Orvis, & A. L. R. Lassiter (Eds.), Computer-supported collaborative learning: Best practices and principles for instructors (pp. 1-18). Hershey, PA: Information Science Reference. Smith, B. L. & MacGregor, J. T. (1997). What is collaborative learning? In A. Goodsell, M. Maher & V. Tinto (Eds.), Collaborative learning: A sourcebook for higher education (pp. 9-22). University Park, PA: National Center on Postsecondary Teaching, Learning, and Assessment. Spiro, R.J., Coulson, R. L., Feltovich, P. J., & Anderson, D. K. (1988). Cognitive flexibility theory: Advanced knowledge acquisition in ill-structured domains (Technical Report No. 441). Champaign: University of Illinois, Center for the Study of Reading. Strijbos, J. W., Martens, R. L. & Jochems, W. M. G. (2004). Designing for interaction: Six steps to designing computer-supported group-based learning. Computers and Education, 42(4), 403-424. Thomas, W. R. & MacGregor, S. K. (2005). Online project-based learning: How collaborative strategies and problem solving processes impact performance. Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 16(1), 83-107. Uribe, D., Klein, J. D. & Sullivan, H. (2003). The effect of computer-mediated collaborative learning on solving ill-defined problems. Educational Technology Research and Development, 51(1), 5-19. Van Aalst, J. & Chan, C. K. K. (2007). Student-directed assessment of knowledge building using electronic portfolios. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 16(2), 175-220.
45. References Wegerif, R. (1998). The social dimension of asynchronous learning networks. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 2(1), 34-49. Wheeler, S. & Nistor, N., (2003). Human behavior in the online subculture. In N. Nistor, S. English, S. Wheeler, & M. Jalobeanu (Eds.), Toward the virtual university: International online perspectives (pp. 119-130). Greenwich, CT: Information Age. Williams, E. A., Duray, R. & Reddy, V. (2006). Teamwork orientation, group cohesiveness, and student learning: A study of the use of teams in online distance education. Journal of Management Education, 30(4), 592. Yuselturk, E. & Cagiltay, C. (2007). Collaborative work in online learning environments: critical issues, dynamics, and challenges. In K. L. Orvis, & A. L. R. Lassiter (Eds.), Computer-supported collaborative learning: Best practices and principles for instructors (pp. 66-88). Hershey, PA: IGI.
Editor's Notes
As participants become more critically aware of their assumptions and expectations, their way of thinking becomes more inclusive, reflective, open, discriminating, and flexible (Mezirow, 2000).