Critical Thinking Presentation

The video can be find in the following address:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6odpd-jgW2U

Moving Toward Dynamic Technologies

The static and dynamic technology classifications are new to me. During this past two years studying in a distant model I had worked most of the time from the static and middle part of the continuum. I had never participated in virtual simulations or gaming. Although I do believe I had experienced knowledge construction, knowledge reflection and deep thinking I would like to explore simulations and virtual worlds. Mind tools are applications that when used by learners critical thinking can be achieved. I believe a simple example is any software that can be used for creating concept maps.

Moving through the “static-dynamic continuum” is a matter of how we use the available technologies to engage in multiple levels of cognitive process. Being able to experience this continuum is always an individual challenge for me both as a learner and as a teacher.

Engaging students effectible in online environments

I believe engaging students in an online learning environment is more difficult than in face-to-face. Current strategies and tools had been created after careful thought and research support.

Asynchronous discussions, for example, are one of these tools. Durrington, Berryhill, and Swafford (2006) recommended base on literature support that guidelines for minimum contribution need to be establish clearly, detailed and clear explanation of the characteristics of quality posting must be presents, and instructors must challenge students individually with questions that are related to their post.

In terms instructor the role is change. Instructors cannot be traditional transmitters of knowledge. We need to change. This change is not an easy one. We developed under traditional classrooms, where the “A” was for the professor, the “B” for the book and the “C” for the student. Using Peter Senge concept I would say that we have to change our ‘mental models’ about instructors. Siemens (2008) described new roles. For Siemens we have to become master artists, curators, concierge and network administrators in order to engage more effectible our students.

I agree with these new roles. I am confident that with new generation our instructor role will be more accepted and these tools would need modification. Engaging students effectible in online environments is a continual evolving experience.

References:

Durrington, V. A., Berryhill, A., & Swafford, J. (2006). Strategies for enhancing student interactivity in an online environment. College Teaching, 54(1), 190-193.<

Siemens, G. (2008). Learning and knowing in networks: Changing roles for educators and designers. ITForum.

Assessing Collaborative Efforts

In a collaborative learning community the members exchange ideas and work for the benefit of the entire group. When trying to achieve this experience in classrooms whether it is face-to-face or online similar issues arise. Some of these issues are different rates of participation from the students, lack of trust between the participants as a group or community, and participants that believe they work better alone among other issues. In online environments it is more challenging to create a social group due to the fact that there is no face contact (Hurd, T. in Ardenson, 2008). This social sense is critical for the group to become a collaborative learning community.

Siemens and Palloff & Pratt (2005) present some of these issues and give interesting alternatives to reduce them. First off is necessary to provide the participants from the beginning with what Palloff and Pratt (2005) called “the stage” which includes courses’ rules, the expectations and the dynamics that they will be experiencing in the course. Additional to this Siemens suggests starting with a group activity where participants can experience the division of roles. Siemens addresses the importance of the assessment. The assessment in online learning environment “needs to emphasize working together”. When working in groups assessment should be individual to motivate participation and collective to encourage interaction (Siemens, 2009). For Siemens to support a successful collaborative work environment it is critical to have: 1) “high level of trust”, 2) “well-connected information sources”, and 3) “external connections to tightly knit groups”. John Mak in his blog suggest as useful methodologies for collaborative participation case study activities, Brainstorming, The In-Basket Exercise, and Role Playing among others.

To deal with cases where the student does not want to network or collaborate it should be clear the individual consequences he or she will suffer. In addition the instructors as moderators should use the multiple tools in many of the content management platforms for distant learning to monitor student’s activities. If the work is done in a wikki or in a blog environment the instructor must be part of the group and actively contribute to the group development in order to show that he/she is present and is aware of each member’s participation. In addition instructors should encourage students that are behind or do not want to be part of the community to participate. Sharing an email or even by a phone or Skype call. This is why the instructor assessment plan should consider individual, peer-to-peer and collective execution.

References

Anderson, T. (Ed.). (2008). The theory and practice of online learning (2nd ed.). Edmonton, AB: Athabasca University Press.

Palloff, R. M., & Pratt, K. (2005). Collaborating online: Learning together in community. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Palloff, R. M., & Pratt, K. (2007). Building online learning communities: Effective strategies for the virtual classroom. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Siemens, G. (n.d.). Assessment of collaborative learning. Retrieved January 5, 2010, from http://sylvan.live.ecollege.com/ec/crs/default.learn?CourseID=3649021&Survey=1&47=5863341&ClientNodeID=984645&coursenav=1&bhcp=1

Siemens, G. (n.d.). Learning communities. Retrieved January 5, 2010, from http://sylvan.live.ecollege.com/ec/crs/default.learn?CourseID=3649021&Survey=1&47=5863341&ClientNodeID=984645&coursenav=1&bhcp=1.

Swan, K. (2004). Relationships between interactions and learning in online environments. The Sloan Consortium.

Video Presentation Outline: Development of Critical Thinking

I. Where can we find critical thinking?

a. In reading and writing

b. In online discussions

c. In problem solving

d. In any course or subject (Why?)

II. What is critical thinking?

III. Critical thinking development?

IV. Critical thinking development in online learning environments?

a. Class Activities

b. Assignments

c. Assessments

d. Examples

Evolving Collaborative Interaction

The growing of Web 2.0 technologies has help us to communicate and interact with people that because of physical separation otherwise we would never meet. Programs such as Skype, Google Groups and Google Docs allow collaborative interaction, people can share information and even work in the same document without having multiple copies of it. I recommend the video “Google Docs in Plain English” which explains how current technologies (Google Doc for example) have evolve allowing more effective collaborations. There are services such as Elluminatewhere one can use Interactive whiteboard and share ideas. I believe the technology has evolved. What needs also to evolve is the people that can use this technology. The corporate world I believe is the one that has benefited most from it. Multiple companies have offices in different states and even in different countries. Having this type of technology shortens distances and reduces many travel and phone expenses.

In the educational system there are still many limitations that make this technology only available to a limited privileged group. People social and economically deprived, many ethnic minorities, groups suffering from social exclusion and geographically remote cannot use this amazing tools. Even in schools where the technology is available we still have the problem of teacher knowledge and narrow experience, group size and time constrains that limit the use of this type of technology.

The technology has evolved to allow us to collaborate however, we need to make room in the educational system in order to participate all of this collaboration.

Theories and Paradigms of Distance Education

Distance education is intimately related to interactions (Aderson, 2008). For Anderson (2008) these interactions are between the components of the educational experiences, which are the teacher, learners, content, context and external environments. In addition we need to consider the fact that face-to-face education cannot be transported to an online environment without adjusting many aspects of it to the new learning experience. For Simonson (2008) what distance education must achieve is equivalence with the face-to-face learning expectation.



In order to achieve this Simonson equivalence we need to considerer the value and importance of creating learning communities that effectively support its member’s interactions. Current technologies available through Web 2.0 networks present a huge variety of options to achieve these fundamental necessities in distance education. Learning platforms for content sharing and interactions such as Moodle, multimedia web hosts such as Youtube or communication software such as Skype are just a few of these resources.


References:

Anderson, T. (Ed.). (2008). The theory and practice of online learning (2nd ed.). Edmonton, AB: Athabasca University Press.

Simonson, M., Smaldino, S., Albright, M., & Zuvacek, S. (2008). Teaching and learning at a distance: Foundations of distance education (4th ed., chapters 1 and 2).