Activity5

Discuss some of the differences between a face-to-face conversation and an online conversation. What advice can we offer students that will help maintain the integrity of online conversations in an online classroom? Be specific.

Communication skills are of the cornerstones of professional practice in a learning community when it comes to face-to-face learning or for online classroom conversations. Traditional education particularly in undergraduate programs has tended to separate knowledge acquisition from knowledge application both between and within courses (Michaelsen, Sweet & Parmelee, 2009). In a typical chemistry 100-level college course, for example, students listen to lectures through which they are expected to absorb a great deal of knowledge that they will then later be asked to put to use in a chemistry lab. In fact, even within higher-level college courses, students often spend much of their time absorbing knowledge that they do not put to use until a project that is due just prior to the final exam week.

If collaborative learning is used, with the small-group learning model, students repeat the knowledge acquisition and knowledge application cycle several times within each individual course. They individually study the course content, and the conversation happens as they discuss it with their peers and the instructor, and immediately apply it in making choices that require them to use their knowledge. One example the researcher has shared here is about flipped classroom concept through this YouTube video for a high school level chemistry class - [] . Flipping classroom is where the lecture happens in the absence of the teacher at the students’ homes via technology (e.g. vodcast of the lesson in the teacher’s own recorded voice), while facilitating the application of the skills taught happens in the presence of the teacher at school (Learning4Mastery, 2010). Technology is used before and after school, while the teacher facilitates learning in school.

As Michaelsen et al. (2009) further discussed, students in collaborative learning develop a much better sense with the relevance of the material because they rarely make unreasonably large inferences about when and how the content might become useful in the real world. There exists a difference when the same concept of team based learning applied to online classrooms, in which written communication is conducted over oral conversation. Does this form of collaboration make online communication effective? Effective online strategies should engage learners in active learning; so that learners will feel that even though they may work alone they are learning together online. This is where the online learning community fits in.

One of the most powerful characteristics of digital technologies is the ability to separate time and place and make use of communication channels such as audio and video. With appropriate choice of technology usage through LMS or outside the online classroom tools, online learners and the instructors are empowered to generate stronger community sense in the learning and teaching. Tu (2004) discussed that the community sense could be diminished due to the isolation that results from inappropriate design and use of online technology. Even if educational institutions follow asynchronous mode of online communication such as NCU and Rio salado college, learners should take advantage of the online collaborative tools available to them through associating with their peers and connecting internally or externally outside the online classrooms to overcome learning in isolation. Viewing through the community-centered lens, one can examine the social component of learning with a group of students. As participants get to know each other, appropriate supports can be targeted to the unique needs of the individual. Vygotsky’s (1978) social constructivist approach is strongly evident in this aspect of online learning theory.

An important component of online learning theory is the ability to express thoughts in written form (Anderson, 2008). This is typically more important online than in a traditional school setting. Written discussions can be used in both learning modes as it is an important component for all students whether it is online or face-to-face. The use of text chats in learning is a modern example of Vygotosky’s belief in the value of using available cultural tools within a social context (Miller, 2002).

Online communities of learning have different characteristics than face-to-face communities, the most obvious being the method of meeting. In face-to-face courses synchronous meetings dominate. However, due to the advent of new generation of online services called Web 2.0, there are tools that include thousands of online collaborative sites for building learning communities. Current practices in e-learning incorporate various asynchronous and synchronous multimedia communication applications such as Skype, Adobe Connect, Google talk, Microsoft Net meeting. All of these applications have the ability to record the synchronous conversations and meetings, play back and re-review the communication from the record log. Another beauty of these applications are the instructors and learners can be able to do screen sharing as and when needed for explaining course related activities. The play back from the seminar recordings work like a charm for the researcher as her programming students able to reflect upon from the learning occurred through weekly synchronous seminar meetings using adobe connect tool.

Besides, numerous research studies found that online discussions provide a level of equalization for students on less assertive or shy, older students (Aviv, Erlich, Ravid, & Geva, 2003). The absence of non-verbal cues can still keep the discussion academically focused, such as written discussions that reduce the social games related to race, gender and group status (Langerhorst, 2012; Warschauer, 1997). However, Langerhorst (2012) claims that the written discussions do not support rapport building between students themselves, yet the plus side is, it does not deter the academic discussion. Under-graduate students could be closely related to the stage of development of the adolescent age group where peers are the most important social group. This supports the idea that online discussion tools allow students in the age of 17 to 25 to avoid many of the social issues that occur in typical verbal discussions, and allows them to keep the focus of online written discussions on the academic issues.

The non-verbal behaviors associated with rapport building such as smiling or head-nodding might be possible in a context of online learning through video or webcams being used as a communication tool. As noted in the study by Stock (2010), because of the absence of voice and nonverbal behavior in an online context, paying attention to factors such as “the length of the patron’s sentence and level of formality and writing a response in approximately the same style” can help build rapport (pp. 48-49). Social conversation and remarks such as “Anyone going out with your moms on Mother’s day?” are also indicators of rapport in online learning community. Different types of beliefs or personal theories concerning rapport exist. One theorist/practitioner emphasized its importance given the online context as a mechanism that compensates for the anonymity resulting from lack of face-to-face interactions (Murphy & Rodriguez, 2012).

Online learning theory postulates that early education efforts were defined by the techniques and tools that took advantage of the availability of current media. Online students get to face the challenge to develop the independent learning skills required and frustration may occur due to time delays in responses. The basic premise is that by developing a shared sense of belonging, commitment, and trust, students challenge each other to learn (Anderson, 2008; Mayes 2006). Today online education is constructed around 1) access to content which is orders of magnitude greater than ever before, 2) availability of, and access to, many forms of rapid communication, and 3) ever increasing accessibility which allows teachers and students to meet from just about any location. The one limitation of online education cited most often is the unique and often rich face-to-face interaction available in a traditional classroom and this is being challenged today with immersive environments such as realistic avatar-based classrooms at sites-such as Secondlife (Anderson, 2008).

References

Anderson, T. (2008). Towards a theory of online learning. //In T. Anderson & F. Elloumi (Eds.) // //The theory and practice of online learning //<span style="font-family: Georgia,serif; font-size: 10pt;">(pp. 45-74). Athabasca, AB: Athabasca <span style="font-family: Georgia,serif; font-size: 10pt;">University Press.

<span style="font-family: Georgia,serif; font-size: 10pt;">Aviv, R., Erlich, Z., Ravid, G., & Geva, A. (2003). Network analysis of knowledge construction <span style="font-family: Georgia,serif; font-size: 10pt;">in asynchronous learning networks. //Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 7(//3), 1- <span style="font-family: Georgia,serif; font-size: 10pt;">23.

<span style="font-family: Georgia,serif; font-size: 10pt; vertical-align: baseline;">Langenhorst, D. G. (2012). Effectiveness of online instruction: //Differences in measured student outcomes// //<span style="font-family: Georgia,serif; font-size: 10pt;">online versus face-to-face instruction at the high school level. //<span style="font-family: Georgia,serif; font-size: 10pt;"> Northeastern University.

<span style="font-family: Georgia,serif; font-size: 10pt;">Learning4Mastery (2010). //The flipped classroom.// YouTube Video. Retrieved from <span style="font-family: Georgia,serif; font-size: 10pt;">[]

<span style="font-family: Georgia,serif; font-size: 10pt;">Mayes, T. (2006). Theoretical perspectives on interactivity in e-learning. //In C. Juwah (Ed.),// //<span style="font-family: Georgia,serif; font-size: 10pt;">Interactions in online education: Implications for theory and practice //<span style="font-family: Georgia,serif; font-size: 10pt;"> (pp. 9-26). New <span style="font-family: Georgia,serif; font-size: 10pt;">York, NY: Routledge

<span style="font-family: Georgia,serif; font-size: 10pt;">Michaelsen, L. K., Sweet, M. & Parmelee, D. X. (2009). Team-based learning: Small group learning's next <span style="font-family: Georgia,serif; font-size: 10pt;">big step. // New Directions for teaching and learning. // Vol 116. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

<span style="font-family: Georgia,serif; font-size: 10pt;">Miller, P. (2002). //Theories of developmental psychology.// New York, NY: Worth Publishers. <span style="font-family: Georgia,serif; font-size: 10pt;">Murphy, E., & Rodriguez-Manzanares, M. A. (2012). Rapport in Distance Education. //International// //<span style="font-family: Georgia,serif; font-size: 10pt;">review of research in open & distance learning, 13( //<span style="font-family: Georgia,serif; font-size: 10pt;">1), 167-190.

<span style="font-family: Georgia,serif; font-size: 10pt;">Stock, M. (2010). The three R’s: Rapport, relationship, and reference. //The Reference Librarian,// 51, 45-52. <span style="font-family: Georgia,serif; font-size: 10pt;">Retrieved from EBSCOhost. doi:10.1080/02763870903361995

<span style="font-family: Georgia,serif; font-size: 10pt;">Tu, C. (2004). Online Collaborative Learning Communities: //Twenty-one designs to building an online// //<span style="font-family: Georgia,serif; font-size: 10pt;">collaborative learning community. //<span style="font-family: Georgia,serif; font-size: 10pt;"> Westport, CT: Greenwood Publishing.

<span style="font-family: Georgia,serif; font-size: 10pt;">Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: //The development of higher psychological processes.// Cambridge, <span style="font-family: Georgia,serif; font-size: 10pt;">MA: Harvard University Press.

<span style="font-family: Georgia,serif; font-size: 10pt;">Warschauer, M. (1997). Computer-mediated collaborative learning: Theory and practice. //The// //<span style="font-family: Georgia,serif; font-size: 10pt;">Modern Language Journal //<span style="font-family: Georgia,serif; font-size: 10pt;">, 81, 470-481.