Reconsidering Instructional Design with Web 2.0 Technologies

Reconsidering Instructional Design with Web 2.0

TechnologiesYanyan Sun, Ohio UniversityJamie Smith, Ohio University

Kun Li, Ohio UniversityFei Gao, Bowling Green State University

Ke Zhang, Wayne State University

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

Please share questions & comments!

bit.ly/sitetech

http://bit.ly/sitetech

Participants & Context

• Ten graduate students who enrolled in a doctoral course

• Age 25-55

• Self-Identified Technology Proficiency: Six intermediate users & Four experts

Threaded Forum VS Web Annotation:

Which Is Better for Online Discussion?

Yanyan SunDepartment of Educational Studies

Ohio University

Annotation

Add information to materials

A learning technique

For later review

Building New

Knowledge

Web Annotation

Digital Highlighting Sticky Notes

Information in the Cloud

Sharing information with others

Annotation in Web 2.0 Age

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)

The Values of Web Annotation in Classrooms

The Potential of Web Annotation to Support Online Discussion

Comment on other’s

annotation posts

Link the comments to

specific locations on the

web

The ABILITIES TO

Support Discussions Online

Web Annotation

Threaded-Discussion

Forum?

Online Discussion Environment

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?

Research Questions

Diigo Tutorial

Three Discussion Questions

Diigo Sticky Notes

Discussion Forum

Survey&

Posts Analysis Free Choice

Research Design

1. Please locate at least one element in USA.gov that you think best presents the value of American culture and explain your reasons.

2. Please locate at least one element in Gov.cn 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.

Discussion questions

Measures

(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.

Measurements: Focus

Adapted from Pena-Shaff and the colleagues’ (2001) coding scheme

Measurements: Knowledge Construction

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.”


“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 don't know how to reply to it.”


“I don't know that I'll be able to speak for every situation, but I made the above decisions because I wanted to try each option.”

Results: Functions of two environments

Means (and Standard Deviations) of Student Ratings on the Two Environments (n=10)

Results: Engagements

Results: The number and the length of the posts.

Results: Focus of the posts.

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.


bit.ly/sitetech


Facilitating Enhanced Self, Peer and Instructor-Centered

Performance Assessment with VoiceThread

Jamie SmithDepartment of Educational Studies

Ohio University

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)

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 )

VoiceThread

Drawing

VideoAudio

Text

vt

http://voicethread.com/share/2053786/

http://voicethread.com/share/2053786/

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

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

Findings Specific Features

Text co

mmenting

Audio commenting

Video commenting

Doodling

Video playbac

k0.00%

10.00%20.00%30.00%40.00%50.00%60.00%70.00%80.00%90.00%

100.00%

NeutralSomewhat EffectiveHighly Effective

[No feature rated Somewhat or Highly Ineffective]

Findings Affordances

Mean Std. Dev.Assess my own performance 4.63 .52Assess the performance of others 4.63 .52Learn from peer feedback 4.5 1.41Learn from instructor feedback 5 0Learn from peer observation 4.38 1.06

VoiceThread allows me to effectively… (5-point Likert scale)

Interaction

“It makes sharing easy. I am able to see everybody's performance and comments, which lead to a high level of social presence.”

Social Presence can enhance online interactionsSignificant 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)

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 didn't 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

Findings Constraints

• Access• Internet• Web cams• Microphones

• Privacy & Data Security

• Comfort Level with Use of Video

Discussion

PerceivedUsefulness

Actual Use

Discussion

Text commenting Video commenting0.00%

10.00%

20.00%

30.00%

40.00%

50.00%

60.00%

70.00%

80.00%

90.00%

100.00%

NeutralSomewhat EffectiveHighly EffectiveUsage

100% Effective38% Usage

62.5% Effective88% Usage

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.

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


bit.ly/sitetech


Increasing Classroom Interactivitywith Synchronous Chatting

Kun LiDepartment of Educational Studies

Ohio University

• Classroom interaction is often prevented by lecturing (Liu, Wang, Liang, Chan, & Yang, 2002).

• Physical gestures as cues of classroom interaction—not guaranteed (Jaffee, 2002).

Classroom Interactivity

• Using Information Communication Technology (ICT) to enhance classroom interactivity (Scornavacca, Huff, & Marshall, 2009; Draper & Brown, 2004; Market et al., 2006).

Using ICT to Enhance Interactivity

Gabbly

Gabbly

Private Chat Room

Embed intoWebpages

Chat room is a small window, no need to switch windows

Online application, no need to download programs

Embed Gabbly into Webpages

• Research Question1.Whether synchronous chat tools could

enhance classroom interactivity.

2.What are participants’ perceptions of using synchronous chatting in class?

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.

Research Design

Time Messages Participants Message contents

Before instruction

12 7 Greetings like “greetings”, “hi”

During and after instruction

69 10 Thoughts like “Yoga can save me from being a hunchback”.Questions like “Can you take a Tai Chi course at the university?”.Answers like “You can take Tai Chi in Ping”.Replies like “Me, too, ** (name)”.Evaluations like “Cool site”.Moods like “Hahahha” “”

Results—Chat History

• 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.

Results—Survey

• Open-ended questions showed four themes

1. Distraction (Mentioned by Four)

Results—Survey

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. I'm glad I wasn't 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.

• Open-ended questions showed four themes:

2. Relaxing Environment (Mentioned by Eight)

Results—Survey

[..]chatting on gabbly was a lot of funnnn! Can't 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.


3. Interactive Platform (Mentioned by Three)

Results—Survey

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 didn't want to interrupt the class or talk out loud to answer. Also, anyone could answer the questions, so it wasn't limited to asking only the teacher.


4. Promote or Prohibit Learning (Mentioned by Four)

Results—Survey

Gabbly both facilitates yet inhibits learning. It's 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.

• 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.

Discussion


bit.ly/sitetech


Twitting for LearningA Critical Analysis of Research

Fei Gao & Ke Zhang

Microblogging in Education

Inclusion Criteria

Analysis of the Studies

Results

Educational Practices

Benefits and Challenges

Nature of Research

Future Research

Discussion


bit.ly/sitetech


Reconsidering Instructional Design with Web 2.0 Technologies

Education

Transcript of Reconsidering Instructional Design with Web 2.0 Technologies