Loading presentation...

Present Remotely

Send the link below via email or IM

Copy

Present to your audience

Start remote presentation

  • Invited audience members will follow you as you navigate and present
  • People invited to a presentation do not need a Prezi account
  • This link expires 10 minutes after you close the presentation
  • A maximum of 30 users can follow your presentation
  • Learn more about this feature in our knowledge base article

Do you really want to delete this prezi?

Neither you, nor the coeditors you shared it with will be able to recover it again.

DeleteCancel

Make your likes visible on Facebook?

Connect your Facebook account to Prezi and let your likes appear on your timeline.
You can change this under Settings & Account at any time.

No, thanks

SLOAN-C Blended Learning Conference March, 2011

The Effects of Faclilitation Prompts and Rubrics on Critical Thinking Performance in Asynchronous Discussions
by

Lisa Giacumo

on 2 April 2011

Comments (0)

Please log in to add your comment.

Report abuse

Transcript of SLOAN-C Blended Learning Conference March, 2011

for Tomorrow's Teachers and Designers Context Materials Design Measures Results Discussion Take Away Wordle Method Results Discussion Results Discussion Research Presented at
SLOAN-C Blended Learning Conference
Oak Brook, Chicago
March, 28 2011 Arizona State university
Lisa Giacumo
Wilhelmina Savenye
Nichole smith
University of Phoenix
Yuyen Su Introduction MANOVA
Rubrics and response prompts
Critical thinking skills
ANCOVA
Pretest, posttest
MANOVA
Satisfaction survey
Qualitative review
Survey free-response questions Implications method Introduction Implications Literature Research Questions Independant Variables
Discussion board rubric
Instructor facilitation
Dependant Variables
Critical thinking skill performance
Learning
Satisfaction What is the effect of using a rubric on:
Higher-order thinking skill performance
Learning
Satisfaction
What is the effect of instructor facilitation on:
Higher-order thinking skill performance
Learning
Satisfaction Participants Procedures Materials Measures Design 217 undergraduate students
Enrolled in a teacher preparation course
Technology integration Pretest subject-matter
Participate in assigned readings and regular planned learning activities
Participate in asynchronous discussion
Posttest subject-matter & satisfaction levels
Assess discussion transcripts Learning management system (Blackboard)
Multimedia Presentation
Guided research activity
Assigned readings
Discussion board prompts Subject-matter learning
Objective-type assessment
Pretest-Posttest
Higher-order thinking skill performance
Rubric, enroute by instructor facilitator
Final transcript analysis
Satisfaction
ELO, Palmer & Holt A O XA1B1 O
A O XA2B1 O
A O XA1B2 O
A O XA2B2 O Analyses Discussion Board Performance Posttest Scores Satisfaction Survey Pretest - Posttest Gains Reserach Questions Teachers Reddy, M. & Andrade, H. (2010). A Review of Rubric Use in Higher Education. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education. Vol 35, no 4, p 435-448.
Allen, E., Seaman, J., & Garret., R. (2007). Blending In: The extent and promise of blended education in the U.S. The Sloan Consitum.
Aviv, R., Erlich, Z., & Geva, A. (2003). Network Analysis of knowledge construction in asynchronous learning networks. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 7(3), 1-23.
Bloom, B. (1977). Behavioral Objectives and Their Application to Career Education. Journal of Career Development, 3 (4), 25-33.
Bandura, A. (1977). Social Learning Theory. New York: General Learning Press.
Christensen, R., Garvin, D., & Sweet, A. (1991). Education for Judgement: The Artistry of Discussion Leadership. Boston, Mass., Harvard Business School Press.
Christopher, M., Thomas, J., & Tallent-Runnels, M. (2004). Raising the Bar: Encouraging High Level Thinking in Online Discussion Forums. Roeper Review, 26 (3), 166-171.
Daroszewski, E. B., Kinser, A. G., & Lloyd, S. L. (2004). Online, directed journaling in community health advanced practice nursing clinical education. Journal of Nursing Education, 43(4), 175-180.
Dennen, V. P. (2005). From Message Posting to Learning Dialogues: Factors affecting learner participation in asynchronous discussion. Distance Education, 26 (1), 127-148.
Williams, D., Yuxin, M., Feist, S., Richard, C., & Prejean, L. (2007). The design of an analogical encoding tool for game-based virtual learning environments. British Journal of Educational Technology, 38(3), 429-437.
Duffy, T. & Jonassen, D. (1992). Constructivism and the Technology of Instruction: A Conversation. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers, Hillsdale, N.J.
Gaytan, J. & McEwen, B. C. (2007). Effective Online Instructional and Assessment Strategies. The American Journal of Distance Education, 21 (3), 117-132.
Good, T. (1987). Two Decades of Research on Teacher Expectations: Findings and Future Directions. Journal of Teacher Education, 38, 32-47.
Hayle, M., & City, E. (2006). The Teacher’s Guide to Leading Student-Centered Discussions: Talking about Texts in the Classroom. Thousand Oaks, Calif., Corwin Press.
Hyman, R. (1980). Improving Discussion Leadership. New York: Columbia Univ., Teachers College Press.
Jackson, C. & Larkin, M. (2002). Teaching Students to Use Grading Rubrics, Teaching Exceptional Children, 35 (1), 40-45.
Johnson, D., Johnson, R., & Smith, K. (1991). Active Learning: Cooperation in the College Classroom. Edina, MN, Interaction Book Co.
Kanuka, H., & Anderson, T. (1998). Online social interchange, discord, and knowledge construction. Journal of Distance Education, 13(1), 57-74
Krathwohl, D. (2002). A Revision of Bloom's Taxonomy: An Overview. Teaching In Practice, 41 (4), 212-218.
Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of Practice: Learning, Meaning, and Identity: Cambridge University Press.
Lipponen, L., Rahikainenb, M., Lallimoa, J., & Hakkarainen, K. (2000). Patterns of participation and discourse in elementary students’ computer-supported collaborative learning. Learning and Instruction, 13 (5), 487-509.
McCann, T. et al. (2006). Talking in Class: Using Discussion to Enhance Teaching and Learning. Urbana, Ill., National Council of Teachers of English.
McIsaac, M. S., Blocher, J. M., Mahes, V., & Vrasidas, C. (1999). Student and teacher perceptions of interaction in online computer-mediated communication. Educational Media International, 36(2), 121–131.
Nelson, B. & Erlandson, B. (2008). Managing cognitive load in educational multi-user virtual environments: The River City case study. Educational Technology Research and Development, 56(5-6), 619-641.
Nunn, C. (1996). Discussion in the College Classroom: Triangulating Observational and Suvery Results. Journal of Higher Education, 67, 243-266.
Palmer, S. R. & Holt, D. M. (2009). Examining student satisfaction with wholly online learning. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 25, 101-113.
Royse, D. (2001). Teaching Tips for College and University Instructors: A Practical Guide. Boston, Mass., Allyn and Bacon.
Schrire, S. (2006.) Knowledge building in asynchronous discussion groups: Going beyond quantitative analysis. Computers & Education, 46, 49-70.
Tsui, L. (2002). Fostering Critical Thinking through Effective Pedagogy: Evidence from Four Institutional Case Studies. Journal of Higher Education, 73, 740-763.
Thompson, E. & Savenye, W. (2007). Adult Learner Participation in an Online Degree Program: A program-level study of voluntary computer-mediated communication. Distance Education, 28 (3), 299-312.
Vygotsky, L.S. (1978). Mind and society: The development of higher mental processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Wu, D., & Hiltz, S. R. (2004). Predicting learning from asynchronous online discussions. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 8(2), 139–152. Reddy, M. & Andrade, H. (2010). A Review of Rubric Use in Higher Education. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education. Vol 35, no 4, p 435-448.
Allen, E., Seaman, J., & Garret., R. (2007). Blending In: The extent and promise of blended education in the U.S. The Sloan Consitum.
Aviv, R., Erlich, Z., & Geva, A. (2003). Network Analysis of knowledge construction in asynchronous learning networks. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 7(3), 1-23.
Bloom, B. (1977). Behavioral Objectives and Their Application to Career Education. Journal of Career Development, 3 (4), 25-33.
Bandura, A. (1977). Social Learning Theory. New York: General Learning Press.
Christensen, R., Garvin, D., & Sweet, A. (1991). Education for Judgement: The Artistry of Discussion Leadership. Boston, Mass., Harvard Business School Press.
Curran, V., Kirby, F., Parsons, E., & Lockyer, J. (2003). Discourse Analysis of Computer-Mediated Conferencing in World Wide Web-Based Continuing Medical Education. The Journal of Continuing Education in the Health Professions, 23 (1), 229-238.
Christopher, M., Thomas, J., & Tallent-Runnels, M. (2004). Raising the Bar: Encouraging High Level Thinking in Online Discussion Forums. Roeper Review, 26 (3), 166-171.
Daroszewski, E. B., Kinser, A. G., & Lloyd, S. L. (2004). Online, directed journaling in community health advanced practice nursing clinical education. Journal of Nursing Education, 43(4), 175-180.
Dennen, V. P. (2005). From Message Posting to Learning Dialogues: Factors affecting learner participation in asynchronous discussion. Distance Education, 26 (1), 127-148.
Williams, D., Yuxin, M., Feist, S., Richard, C., & Prejean, L. (2007). The design of an analogical encoding tool for game-based virtual learning environments. British Journal of Educational Technology, 38(3), 429-437.
Duffy, T. & Jonassen, D. (1992). Constructivism and the Technology of Instruction: A Conversation. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers, Hillsdale, N.J.
Garrison, D. R. (2007). Online Community of Inquiry Review: Social, cognitive, and teaching presence issues. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 11(1), 61-72.
Gaytan, J. & McEwen, B. C. (2007). Effective Online Instructional and Assessment Strategies. The American Journal of Distance Education, 21 (3), 117-132.
Good, T. (1987). Two Decades of Research on Teacher Expectations: Findings and Future Directions. Journal of Teacher Education, 38, 32-47.
Han, S. & Hill, J. (2007). Collaborate to Learn, Learning to Collaborate: Examining the roles of context, community, and cognition in asynchronous discussion. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 36 (1), 89-123.Heejung, An. Shin, S., and Lim, K., (2009). The effects of different instructor facilitation approaches on students’ interactions during asynchronous online discussions. Computers & Education, 53 (3), 749-760.
Hayle, M., & City, E. (2006). The Teacher’s Guide to Leading Student-Centered Discussions: Talking about Texts in the Classroom. Thousand Oaks, Calif., Corwin Press.
Hemphill, L. & Hemphill, H. (2007). Evaluating the Impact of Guest Speaker Postings in Online Discussions. British Journal of Educational Technology, 38 (2), 287-293.
Hyman, R. (1980). Improving Discussion Leadership. New York: Columbia Univ., Teachers College Press.
Jackson, C. & Larkin, M. (2002). Teaching Students to Use Grading Rubrics, Teaching Exceptional Children, 35 (1), 40-45.
Jetton, T. (2004). Using Computer-Mediated Discussion To Facilitate Preservice Teachers’ Understanding of Literacy Assessment and Instruction. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 32 (2), 171-191.
Johnson, D., Johnson, R., & Smith, K. (1991). Active Learning: Cooperation in the College Classroom. Edina, MN, Interaction Book Co.
Kanuka, H., & Anderson, T. (1998). Online social interchange, discord, and knowledge construction. Journal of Distance Education, 13(1), 57-74
Krathwohl, D. (2002). A Revision of Bloom's Taxonomy: An Overview. Teaching In Practice, 41 (4), 212-218.
Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of Practice: Learning, Meaning, and Identity: Cambridge University Press.
Lipponen, L., Rahikainenb, M., Lallimoa, J., & Hakkarainen, K. (2000). Patterns of participation and discourse in elementary students’ computer-supported collaborative learning. Learning and Instruction, 13 (5), 487-509.
Maher, M. & Jacob, E. (2006). Peer Computer Conferencing to Support Teachers’ Reflection During Action Research. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 14 (1), 127-150.
McCann, T. et al. (2006). Talking in Class: Using Discussion to Enhance Teaching and Learning. Urbana, Ill., National Council of Teachers of English.
McIsaac, M. S., Blocher, J. M., Mahes, V., & Vrasidas, C. (1999). Student and teacher perceptions of interaction in online computer-mediated communication. Educational Media International, 36(2), 121–131.
Nelson, B. & Erlandson, B. (2008). Managing cognitive load in educational multi-user virtual environments: The River City case study. Educational Technology Research and Development, 56(5-6), 619-641.
Nunn, C. (1996). Discussion in the College Classroom: Triangulating Observational and Suvery Results. Journal of Higher Education, 67, 243-266.
Palmer, S. R. & Holt, D. M. (2009). Examining student satisfaction with wholly online learning. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 25, 101-113.
Royse, D. (2001). Teaching Tips for College and University Instructors: A Practical Guide. Boston, Mass., Allyn and Bacon.Schrire, S. (2006.) Knowledge building in asynchronous discussion groups: Going beyond quantitative analysis. Computers & Education, 46, 49-70.
Tsui, L. (2002). Fostering Critical Thinking through Effective Pedagogy: Evidence from Four Institutional Case Studies. Journal of Higher Education, 73, 740-763.
Thompson, E. & Savenye, W. (2007). Adult Learner Participation in an Online Degree Program: A program-level study of voluntary computer-mediated communication. Distance Education, 28 (3), 299-312.
Vygotsky, L.S. (1978). Mind and society: The development of higher mental processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Wu, D., & Hiltz, S. R. (2004). Predicting learning from asynchronous online discussions. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 8(2), 139–152. References Follow Up Follow Up Follow Up Follow Up What is the effect of using a rubric on:
Higher-order thinking skill performance
Learning
Satisfaction
What is the effect of instructor facilitation on:
Higher-order thinking skill performance
Learning
Satisfaction Students with a rubric outperformed students with no rubric and no facilitation prompts
Instructor facilitation response prompts yeilded a significantly higher breadth of students performance
The quality of students' writing was significantly better when students has instructor facilitation response prompts
Instructor prompts tended to result in higher overall student discussion-board scores
An interaction was found between rubrics and instructor response prompts (NEW finding) No statistically significant results found between the treatment groups and objective-type assessment scores
Quiz scores were rather low throughout the treatment groups Discussion Board Performance Posttest Performance Satisfaction Survey Limitations Students generally enjoyed blended module
Overall, students felt good about solving problems, the overall design, and relating concepts to real-world applications
Overall, students reported the least satisfaction with the amount of work required, student-teacher interaction, and online quiz
percieved quiz questions as irrelevant
Students percieved 30-item objective type assessment tool as being too long Quasi-experimental design could include latent instructor effects
Only 2 of 4 instructors actually provided response prompts
Students have little exposure to working with rubrics as a formative assessment aid
Students may not have noticed the rubric, as an electronic copy was only placed in the treatment discussion forms
Rubric measures did not account for illogic
Quiz length and wording of questions should be further investigated Researchers Students should be presented with rubrics to guide discussion board performance
Instructor faciliation ROI may not be substantial Consider the effects of instructing students on the use of rubrics
Beware of expecting teachers to follow facilitation protocols
Additional research is needed to confirm effects in different contexts, populations, and content Designers Beware of expecting facilitation protocols to be followed Presenter contact information
Lisa Giacumo
lgiacumo@asu.edu
@Giacumo
www.linkedin.com/in/lisagiacumo
I want to collaborate with YOU! Asking follow up questions might facilitate HOT skills (Schrire, 2002; Christopher, Thomas, Tallent-Runnels, 2004)
Learners look to instructor to shape discussion interactions (Dennen, 2005)
Often, students do not recieve facilitation beyond one well-constructed discussion prompt (Kanuka & Anderson, 1998; Daroszewski, Kinser, Loyd 2004)
Prompt feedback may make a difference (Reddy & Andrade, 2010) LMS typically include communication tools
Share information, experiences, construct understanding Online and blended learning opporutnities increasing (Allen, Seaman & Garret, 2007) Higher-order thinking (HOT) skills demonstration inconsistent (Gayton & McEwen, 2007) Scaffolds have been used to provide feedback in hypermedia environments (Kao & Cennamo, 1996) Hard scaffolds are static (e.g., rubric)
Soft scaffolds are dynamic (e.g., instructor response prompts)
Structure created by teachers/designers contributes to more consistent HOT skill demonstration (Smith, Savenye, Giacumo, 2009) Rubrics: common characterics Quantity of participation
Cognitive quality of participation
Meaningful connections between course content
Abstract concepts
Real world experiences
Timeliness
Collegiality
Writing mechanics
(Ajayi, 2010; Gilbert & Dabbagh, 2005; Ho & Swan, 2007; Knowlton, 2003; Penny & Murphy, 2009; Topen & Ubuz, 2008; Vitale, 2010) Rubrics: common uses Formative & summative evalation tools
Help students understand goals, expectations, and make judgements (Arter & McTingle, 2001)
Help instructors provide clear feedback (Song, 2006)
Correlates with increased participation (Wang, 2007) Rubrics: possible influences Increased participation (Wang, 2007)
Increased student satisfaction (Andrade & Du, 2005; Powell, 2001)
Absence of rigourous research on learning (Reddy & Andrade, 2010) Instructor facilitation in Computer-Mediated Communication Social interactions with more advanced persons can benefit learners (Vygotsky, 1978)
HOT skills can be developed in asynchronous discussions (Garrison, Anderson & Archer, 2003)
Faciliation and structure can contribute to meaningful discourse (Gilbert & Dabbagh, 2005) Instructor facilitation: possible influences Positive student attitudes (Shea, Pickett, and Pelz, 2003; Swan, 2001; Zhan & de Montes, 2007)
No significant difference in student attitudes (Giacumo & Savenye, 2010)
Reduced student interaction (An, Shin, and Lim, 2009) Instructor facilitation: protocols Give clear guidelines and opportunity for everyone to give unique response (Dennen, 2005)
Provide feedback, but only when needed (Curran, Kirby, Parsons, Lockyer, 2003; Garrison, 2007; Jetton, 2004; Maher & Jacob, 2006)
Remain purposely passive and contribute only if necessary (Hemphill & Hemphill, 2007)
Should demonstrate openness for all individual contributions (McKee, 2002)
Full transcript