Fostering collaboration, ownership, and professional networks—in online and distance

environments

Eileen A. O’Connor, Ph.D. Eileen.oconnor@esc.edu

Empire State College

What will follow:

• Possible outcomes & design considerations • Examples from my work– IRB procured; a study was conducted– The work has been submitted for possible

publication • General considerations

Higher level work

Products & relationships

that last beyond the

course

Increased pride &

ownership

Improved work:

Higher level work

Products & relationships

that last beyond the

course

Increased pride &

ownership

Use web & wiki

products:

Higher level work

Products & relationships

that last beyond the

course

Increased pride &

ownership

Social professional

networks can result too

Higher level work

Products & relationships

that last beyond the

course

Increased pride &

ownership

But how do you do this

in online courses?

Through careful planning, design, and integrate the course elements:

• Make the collaboration process itself explicit• Develop or assign teams; require brainstorming• Model the type of complex outcomes desired;

be clear about expectations and assessment• Scaffold and pace the project development

process: set a time line / require reports • Provide a forum for displaying work• Invite / require peer review

The course that will be illustrated

• A graduate course in the Master of Arts in Teaching program – Content Course: Science – Extending the students expertise in science

through a science exploration – Creating a project that K12 students could join • In a collaborative efforts

Course elements & their analysis: the evidence; presented in the research

In determining what elements of design, interactions, expectations, virtual building, and virtual presenting were effective in supporting collaboration on the inquiry-based science-project development, this author/instructor gathered evidence from processes and products within the course, including:

• project delineation, considering the course elements of structure, expectations, and evaluation required for the brainstorming, project submission, peer voting, project-selection and team-assignment process;

• peer interactions, surveying the weekly project-and-topic meetings that were conducted by teams within Second Life and reported to the class in a discussion board and the weekly individually-submitted task lists;

• final products and presentations, observing, videotaping (within the virtual space), analyzing, and grading the presentations and projects within the Second Life pod and within the required project wiki/website, using the assigned criteria and the grading rubric;

• student debriefings, reviewing their comments on their own work, on the work of colleagues, and on ways to improve the course in the future

Overall results / 17 studentTopic & # of students Bio. (3) Biodiv. (2) Bio2 (2) Rain (3) Physics

(3)Ocean

(2)River

(2)

Prior work w/ instructor 2 2 0 1 1 0 1

Student centered project Partial Yes Yes Yes Partial Yes Yes

Collabor. effectiveness Good Good Poor Good Poor Good good

Student satisfaction Good Good Varied Good Varied Good Good

Instructor satisfaction OK Good OK Good Not OK Good Good

Exceeded expectations Yes Yes No Yes No Yes Yes

Final report quality Good Good OK Good Not OK Good Good

Topic & # of students Bio. (3) Biodiv. (2) Bio2 (2) Rain (3) Physics (3)

Ocean (2)

River (2)

Prior work w/ instructor 2 2 0 1 1 0 1

Student centered project Partial Yes Yes Yes Partial Yes Yes

Collabor. effectiveness Good Good Poor Good Poor Good good

Student satisfaction Good Good Varied Good Varied Good Good

Instructor satisfaction OK Good OK Good Not OK Good Good

Exceeded expectations Yes Yes No Yes No Yes Yes

Final report quality Good Good OK Good Not OK Good Good

Overall results / 17 student

Topic & # of students Bio (3) Biodiv. (2) Bio 2 (2) Rain (3) Physics(3) Ocean (2)

River (2)

Prior work w/ instructor 2 2 0 1 1 0 1

Student centered project Partial Yes Yes Yes Partial Yes Yes

Collabor. effectiveness Good Good Poor Good Poor Good good

Student satisfaction Good Good Varied Good Varied Good Good

Instructor satisfaction OK Good OK Good Not OK Good Good

Exceeded expectations Yes Yes No Yes No Yes Yes

Final report quality Good Good OK Good Not OK Good Good

Only 1 was below the standard

Overall results / 17 student

Within the course: generating the project

General brainstorming to . . .

focusing ideas & creating teams . . .

the actual project planning

Explaining the logistics & the collaborative process• Reports weekly

meetings via PPTSecond Life meetings

• Documents weekly individual progress Task / time

report

Defining the project – required components

And, providing a rich schematic (and verbiage) of areas to consider:

Logistics & the collaborative project development process

• Reports weekly meetings via PPTSecond Life

meetings

• Documents weekly individual progress Task / time

report

Clarifying the final evaluation:

75% individual & 25% cohesive, attractive project

What I saw: the students took pride

in their “pod” development work

Pods where decorated by students

Added: plants

Second Life pod expectations were minimal, but students added more than required – from individual exploration & sharing with peers

Added: rotating spheres Added: circulating

fish

Pride in ownership / Extended learning

And, in the projects that they eventually presented within the pods

Genuine sharing, community & caring was evident; students asked relevant questions & added extending ideas – all at a distance

A pod about oceanography

Observed

• Rich projects – better than previous courses (students comments show pride & valuing)

• Genuine valuing and application of 21st century technologies to the future K12 students; an expanded understanding of literacy

• Peer teaching/learning – more skills evident then “taught” or even required

• Responsibility and professionalism in the presentations – proud to share their findings

NOT ONLY WITHIN VIRTUAL

ENVIRONMENTS

The following slides show peer developed websites, an easy

alternative or adjunct to using virtual shared work

Project websites welcomed K12 students and teachers

Some students even featured their own avatars

Some projects included other schools

Projects helped other teachers understand how to integrate their ideas

Some projects had direct public service aspects

Projects with scientific materials

Useful teacher guidelines

Info and links to 21st century tools

Some projects included relevant YouTubes & resources

Other student projects created their own YouTubes

Some projects included work that the students had actually conducted

And, showed data could be collected & used in the project (quantitative science literacy)

Some required science literacy journals

Teacher resources were included in all

Conclusions• Course themes and approaches that appeared to

influence the effectiveness of the results– Sequencing & scaffolding – built understanding of

requirements and staged – Brainstorming and modeling – provided a rich example– Pacing, weekly reporting, and task lists -- kept all

teams on task and accountable – Requiring a project wiki/website, a science pod in

Second Life, & presentations within the pod – developed pride and ownership

Contingency plans

• Place collaboration as a course objective and requirement – Not all will like the process– Develop a grading approach that will ensure

fairness – participation can be monitored in wikis• Have backup plans – Alternative assignments if needed

Higher level work

Products & relationships

that last beyond the

course

Increased pride &

ownership

There are multiple ways to work to the best

in online environments