Return-Path: <nifl-aalpd@literacy.nifl.gov> Received: from literacy (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by literacy.nifl.gov (8.10.2/8.10.2) with SMTP id i2UFIIm16822; Tue, 30 Mar 2004 10:18:18 -0500 (EST) Date: Tue, 30 Mar 2004 10:18:18 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <001d01c41669$bc471a10$a6881a0a@famlit.net> Errors-To: listowner@literacy.nifl.gov Reply-To: nifl-aalpd@literacy.nifl.gov Originator: nifl-aalpd@literacy.nifl.gov Sender: nifl-aalpd@literacy.nifl.gov Precedence: bulk From: "Jane Mencer" <jmencer@famlit.org> To: Multiple recipients of list <nifl-aalpd@literacy.nifl.gov> Subject: [NIFL-AALPD:1242] RE: Online community X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.6626 Content-Type: text/plain; Status: O Content-Length: 2909 Lines: 69 You asked, "what could have been done differently to increase the interaction among participants?" That's a great question! I think that there are a few things that might have positively impacted the quality and quantity of discussion on our discussion board: 1. We could have been placed in smaller groups and been asked to read and respond to the postings of only those learners' in our group, instead of the entire class. Then, perhaps, a spokesperson for the group could have summarized for the other group what had happened on their discussion board and vice versa. It can be daunting to have to read every classmate's project summaries, for example. 2. The instructor could have used the discussion board exclusively for sharing documents that we needed for the course. Instead, he (very conveniently, I might add) sent them to our home or work e-mail accounts. Unfortunately for the viability of the discussion board, we didn't always have an incentive to log on to check the board. 3. Perhaps if we had been assigned to read and post on the discussion board frequently and early in the course, as learners we might have developed the habit of logging in and have come to see the board for it's potential value to us. As I said earlier, as a class, we did respond to requirements, just not to optional activities. Hindsight's 20/20, isn't it? Jane -----Original Message----- From: nifl-aalpd@nifl.gov [mailto:nifl-aalpd@nifl.gov] On Behalf Of jataylor Sent: Tuesday, March 30, 2004 8:59 AM To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: [NIFL-AALPD:1241] Online community Hello everyone! I agree with Nickie, there certainly has been a lot of discussion for the first day! In all that we have shared thus far, what themes seem to be emerging? I noticed that many of us made reference to the importance of interactive learning environments. Jane, you noted, "The one negative comment that I have is that the discussion board was, for the most part, a dead zone. My classmates only posted what was required. No real discussion took place though we were encouraged to use it actively to query and learn from each other." While Beth, you shared how you missed the camaraderie that developed among participants in a discussion board. Jane, what could have been done differently to increase the interaction among participants? Beth, what did you take away from the experience that you otherwise would not have learned without the interaction? What are others' experiences with interaction and online community in distance education? Nickie and others made reference to strategies for developing online learning communities. But first, why online community? How important is interactivity among students in distance education? Are we saying that for a successful distance education experience that interactivity among classmates must play a part? And if so, how much? Thanks! Jackie
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Thu Dec 23 2004 - 09:45:45 EST