Activity11

Design four different collaborative activities for a course of your choice. Submit the following: (a) a description of the course, including course goals and objectives (b) grade/age/learning level of the learners in the course (c) background information on the learners (Are students new to online learning? Are they experienced online learners? Is the group a mixture of the two?) (d) a clear description of each type of activity and why it is considered a collaborative activity (e) a detailed description of the activity itself: directions for the activity, objectives, timeline, process for submission, and assessment. If citations are used, be sure to cite quotations and paraphrases with references in APA format and style.

** INTRODUCTION ** Many higher education institutions across the country are increasingly developing virtual courses that were once only available in a traditional brick-and-mortar setting. A rapidly increasing demand for flexible educational alternatives has led to a significant rise in online program and course offerings. This increase in online course offerings is designed to meet the changing needs of our students. One of the main challenges that online instructors face today is determining how to effectively engage students in an online course format. Recent reports indicate that the skills that are most important to employers when hiring recent college graduates are: teamwork skills (44%), critical thinking and reasoning skills (33%), oral and written communication skills (30%), and the ability to assemble or organize information (21%) (NLC, 2011; Pascarella & Terenzini, 2005). The design and delivery of online courses should support the development of these essential skills and in addition, online computer programming courses should promote the development of effective programming and software development skills by introducing collaborative activities in the courses.

Teaching computer programming effectively requires demonstration of programming techniques, examples, and environments, and interaction with the students, making online delivery even more challenging. The course described in this paper is the fundamental programming course taken by the students majoring in a computing discipline. The course is also taken by students who chose to minor in one of the computing programs or students with a general interest in programming, making the course additionally challenging to teach.

Combining Information Processing Model & Cognitive Model

Theoretical perspectives of human information processing and social interaction both suggest constructs useful in answering questions about how best to judge and design collaborative learning environments that improve learning. To understand the current models of collaborative learning, one must first understand human information processing and social interaction that contribute to the collaborative information processing model. Information processing (IP) learning model include specific IP components that perform complex operations. A well-known information processing model is the two-store (or dual store) model introduced by Atkinson and Shiffrin (1968). Their model distinguishes two functional memory components: short-term memory (STM) and long-term memory (LTM), both with specific characteristics. For example, STM is able to variously process information, but the very limited storage capacity of STM is affected by how much processing is occurring. Some theorists call STM “working memory” (WM) to better represent the ability of this functional component to process information. New information perceived in WM is elaborated in to LTM (Raaijmakers & Shiffrin, 2004). Information processing models thus predict that the degree of association possible between new and previously learned information affects learning (Jorczak, 2008).

Interactive Cognitive Complexity (ICC) learning model (Tennyson & Breuer, 1997, 2002), contain similar functional components. The ICC model includes a knowledge base that is the repository for previously acquired information similar to LTM. The ICC model specifies different types of knowledge stored in the knowledge base: declarative, procedural, and contextual that is necessary for IT programming skills. Declarative knowledge is to //knowing// the concepts, rules, and principles. Procedural knowledge is to //knowing how// to the use of declarative knowledge to accomplish tasks. Contextual knowledge is to //knowing why, when, and where// to use declarative and procedural knowledge (Tennyson & Breuer, 1997). Cognitive “strategies” of the ICC model include differentiation, integration, and construction. Tennyson and Breuer further stated that elaborating processes and altering information in a learner’s knowledge base, is done based on sensory input of new information and affective states. The dual-store model more explicitly explains how such integration occurs via elaborative rehearsal and learners infer this new emergent knowledge based on their prior knowledge and newly internalized knowledge through integrated learning (Cress and Kimmerle, 2008; Chickering, A., & Gamson, Z, 1987).

Cress and Kimmerle (2008)’s concept of emergent learning is consistent with the conceptualization of higher-order learning used in this study. The key point is that higher-order leaning requires the generation of knowledge that is not present in the source of external information and also not present in the learner’s prior knowledge. The definition of higher-order learning is the result of logical cognitive processes of the learner that result in knowledge new to the individual and the group by processing information through collaboration. Thus, each of the three strategies of cognitive processing model includes a process of information integration. Combination of both IP and ICC learning models may result in integrating information when applied in a collaborative learning environment for online IT programming courses.

= Theories Of Learning By Collaboration =

Social constructivist theory, often mentioned as a basis for collaborative learning (e.g., De Wever, Schellens, Valcke & Van Keer, 2006; Hammond, 2005), emphasizes the importance of social interaction in the learning of new knowledge and skills. Numerous studies based on the theoretical framework on collaborative learning promote the idea that social interaction within a community fosters stronger engagement and in-depth subject understanding among learners. The importance of social interaction to learning is reflected in the work of Vygotsky (1978), for example, who argued that each step in the process of a child’s cognitive development begins first at the social level before becoming internalized within the individual. According to Vygotsky’s view, cognitive development results from internalizing socially shared activities. Activity acquires meaning, moreover, within the “system of social behavior” (p. 30).

While Vygotsky conceived of the ZPD as pertaining to an individual learner within the context of social interaction, other scholars have broadened this idea. In their study of the ZPD within the context of collaborative learning, Fernandez, Wegerif, Mercer, and Rojas-Drummund (2001) observed the ZPD in student interactions as a collective phenomenon of the group. Brown et al. (1993), furthermore, argued that the ZPD not only includes people, but any artifacts with which people interact. These artifacts might include text materials, reference books, videos, displays, or a computer environment intended to support learning.

Schellens and Valcke (2005) model explain collaborative learning by integrating social-constructivist principles with the concepts of cognitive information processing models. Cognitive processing is triggered and “directed’ by tasks presented in the collaborative learning environment such as online discussion tasks. These tasks require that learners organize their output (posting messages) in a way that is meaningful for other members of the group (i.e., they externalize the knowledge). The group therefore provides both a richer environment (more information) and more processing capacity, as the cognitive resources of the group are greater than any individual member (Schellens & Valcke, 2005).

= Course Design and Structure =

The online course developed using eCollege (2012), the course management system adopted by the Online University that I work for. This course management software provides an integrated framework for developing the components of an online course, as well as for delivering the course. Since the course being delivered completely online, it is important to develop a clear organization for the course materials that would provide a range of content, resources, and activities, and that would enable students to easily locate and access relevant materials. The course web site is organized into categories including: • Course Announcements and Course Calendar • Course Description and Course Outcomes • Course Information and Course Materials • Discussion Boards • Seminar Meetings • Unit Project Assignments • Peer Project • Career Group Project • Grade book • Grading Criteria/Course Evaluation

Foundations of programming using Java course is being offered for graduate students enrolled in Bachelors in Information Technology (BS IT) as their emphasis. Course Description This course is an introduction to object-oriented programming in Java, where students learn analysis and design techniques of software engineering. Projects and assignments cover numerous aspects of program development. Students successfully completing the course will have the necessary background to analyze, design, and implement basic software solutions in Java.

Course Outcomes By the end of the Java programming course, learners should be able to: 1. Apply Java object and class structures to program development. 2. Discuss how abstraction and modularization affect the nature of object interaction. 3. Implement basic object-oriented programming design techniques. 4. Apply the debugging process to Java development.

Learner Background Learners in the IT258 course represent mostly novice and some intermediate online learners that have been enrolled in the Bachelors or Associates degree program in the age ranging from 17 through 64 from within the United States and two-thirds from different countries including our army men serving our country stationed in many different places across the world. The group is always a mixture of both novice and intermediate programmers in this java programming course. Methodology The quantitative mechanism approach being used and assessed in the form of weekly group discussion forums, seminar participation, peer project editing, and digital portfolio knowledge base forum when designing collaborative activities. The coursework activities shown in Table 1, the KU grading criteria/ course evaluation through distribution of points for evaluating students shown in Table 2, whereas Table 3 illustrates the KU grading scale through grade distribution scheme for the course designed. Eight weekly hands-on programming assignments were designed to the students. The students can complete their weekly assignments using Java programming software. All weekly assignments are due by the Tuesday midnight EST of the lesson week. Project based assessment is another strategy that has been used in the assessment of student learning where group projects were assigned in peers to explain a simple programming model using an interactive web application tool, referred to as Scratch. Watkins (2005) suggests that assessment should be directly related to the objectives when creating an effective online course that gives meaning and context to the learning. In the career group project, students were required to work in groups and assessed on how they create and develop a programming project as a team. They were allowed to choose the topic and domain of the project. They had to cover the assigned criteria and meet the assignment deadlines. The objective of the career project is to provide students an opportunity to explore areas and aspects of the programming skills used in a certain business of their particular interest and to channel their creativity and enthusiasm toward a productive and rewarding goal.

**__COLLABORATIVE ACTIVITIES IN JAVA PROGRAMMING LEVEL I COURSE__** **__Collaborative Activity__ (1):** (Asynchronous mode) **Lesson 2: Discussion Forum** Complete Web Field Trip 1: [|Scratch], an introductory application tool and download to install Scratch. Scratch programming tool can be downloaded for free from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) website to create and build simple programs without building or writing code. The software is safe to download to create interactive programs. This tool helps to simulate the programming capabilities to transform it from Scratch into Java programming tool. This activity is done purely to get the basic programming idea to assimilate the programming logic in an assigned task. Refer to the instructor’s instructions specified in the lesson 2 activity. **(Due Tuesday) – 20 points.**

__Instructions for “Creating from Scratch”__:

(a.) Individual Program Construction – 10 points

(b.)Peers’ Views Exchange through Lesson 2 group discussion board – 10 points

Create a new Scratch project, and construct the following program. After creating the following program, reflect your views on the program constructed with the class in answering and communicating with peers on the following two questions:

1, What are your views in using Scratch programming tool?

2, What are the challenges you had while creating the program using Scratch?

This activity added in Lesson 2 plan allows the students to freely communicate and brainstorm on information processing and try to get acclimatized with the online setting by the end of week 2.

By doing this, the program discussion thread opens up,


 * For the learners to reflect upon their program construction using scratch application and respond to other student entries,
 * Learn different ways the learners may solve the problem using programming practices,
 * find commonalities with others in the class, and
 * express their genuine openness to collaborate.

__Assessment:__

Asynchronous dialogue is used for sharing and negotiating understanding.

Activity Discussion board grades consist of two elements:

1, an individual grade for the engaged activity (5 points) and

2, an individual grade based on a minimum of two reviews done in responses to your fellow classmates (5 points).

• Failure to participate in the discussion board is an automatic 5 point deduction for this activity.

According to Palloff & Pratt (2007), using collaborative learning through discussion board stimulates critical thinking and helps students exchange and clarify ideas through discussion. Learners also post questions and call on the diversity of people resources to get help. The questions also provide the instructor with opportunities to assess problems and progress.


 * __Collaborative Activity__: (2):** (Synchronous mode) **Seminar Participation**

=
Lesson 2 through 9: Weekly Seminar Participation through Adobe Connect audio/video tool. (Seminar Timings: Every Wednesday: 10:00PM -11:00PM EST) – 10 points. ======

__Instructions for Seminar participation__:

Seminar sessions are divided in to two parts:

1, Pre-set seminar questions created by the instructor for weekly lessons are exchanged with the students during the 45 minute discussion.

2, Last 15 minute is allotted for Q/A session. The audio facility will be enabled 15 minutes before to ask questions to interact online through adobe connect.

Seminar sessions are a great learning curve as it is your opportunity to ask any questions or clarify material that has been presented in the current week’s learning outcomes or readings. If you have specific questions or topics you would like to be addressed in class, please email your instructor prior to the day of your chat. Though this is an online introductory programming course, including the use of two-way audio-video capabilities allow students to ask questions, share programming ideas, and also access pre-recorded lectures if the student has missed a seminar.

__Assessment:__

Students could get help maintaining a synchronous aspect to the course.

Seminar participation is graded based on:

1, an individual grade for the engaged activity (5 points) and,

2, as how well they have participated during the seminar sessions (5 points).


 * __Collaborative Activity__: (3):** (Synchronous mode) **Peer Editing**

__Instructions for Peer editing activity__:

Post a 300-400 word paper in describing the final project career identification you have chosen with your group. Each group consists of 3-4 students to work on their final project choice of selection made to write the proposal for instructor’s approval.

1. How would you define the mission statement, goals, and objectives of the Final Project application you will be creating with your group members?

Learners exchange draft versions of course deliverables (using [|Google Docs]) and get feedback from each other in order to improve them.


 * Post your paper on the Groups link under the Lesson 3 Project Forum thread once peer editing is complete. Make sure every student in the team gets involved in peer editing before the proposal is submitted for approval by the instructor. Each team member should collaborate in the peer editing to contribute. No lurking is encouraged and active participation with the peers is required. **(Due Tuesday) – 20 points.**

__Assessment:__

Synchronous mode help students to get help in the course. Peer editing activity is graded based on, how small groups of learners create a written deliverable. The questions also provide the instructor with opportunities to assess problems and progress to guide the learners in the online environment.


 * __Collaborative Activity__: (4):** (Asynchronous mode) **Digital Portfolio Knowledge Base**


 * Lesson 1 and 10:**

During Lesson 1, complete your Program Portfolio part 1 - creation (Due Tuesday, end of Week 1) **- 20 points** During Lesson 10, complete your Program Portfolio part 2 - update **(**Due Tuesday, end of Week 10**)** **- 20 points**

__Instructions for Portfolio creation activity__ (reflection exercise):

Using digital portfolio help us to collect, select, build and publish our work using electronic technology as the data container. For digital portfolio creation to be completed through eCollege course portal, post your thoughts and discuss with your peers the following question:

1. “What kinds of “artifacts” or evidence might you be able to archive in a digital portfolio?”

You have to generate the list and then discuss in the portfolio discussion board forum what this might mean in terms of variety of media and projects that can be included: e.g. documents, pdf, video, audio, multimedia, links, images, PPT etc.

2. Why do you think creating portfolio in this programming course is necessary?

__Assessment:__

Student portfolios are aligned with the assessment criteria. Upon creation and upload of the final course project, an assessment is made based on the portfolio created. A deeper learning process can accompany the creation of an e-portfolio. The portfolio is a way to connect learners’ academic, professional, and past experiences. Students can upload some of their ‘signature assignments’ such as final project for the java programming course to archive in their portfolios.

In the instructor’s online programming classroom, students showed factors such as asking questions, requesting explanations, giving responses to their posts on what they knew about the subject topic invited peer commentary, having prerequisite knowledge of the subject matter, and experiencing positive emotions during collaboration all contributed to high level, or in-depth learning and high interaction among group members. Wiley and Bailey (2006) found that post-secondary students who worked collaboratively on an argumentation task in an online environment demonstrated more interaction and co-construction of understanding than students who worked together on a summarization task. The researcher use personal modeling by quoting real-life examples that help her students to recall and understand object-oriented concepts in the graded discussion forums through collaborative exercises. Finally, what seems to matter is that students were engaged in cognitive processes such as identifying gaps in their knowledge, questioning or elaborating on each other’s ideas, and coming up with related explanations or solutions and following up with frequent course feedback. Group assignments promote learning communities and help online students overcome physical separation as well as feelings of disconnection, isolation, and lack of support (Angelino et al., 2007). However, as with any group project, the researcher encourages that educators need to help teams identify how they will work together and should ensure the workload is equitable among all team members. Also, it is encouraged to have smaller group sizes for final project discussion among teams.

The constant rise of online learning and related technologies presents a great opportunity for educators to design courses that engage students to collaborate through various tools through the use of technology. By designing course related activities for reflective assignments, help learners in the programming class to develop higher-order thinking skills by prompting learners to relate new knowledge to prior understanding, think in both abstract and conceptual terms, apply specific strategies in novel tasks, and understand their own thinking and learning strategies. Rocco (2010) advocated, "Including reflective writing as an assessable activity signals to students its value and significance and ensures their attention and commitment to the task requirements.” When course activities are effectively designed by the educators, technology can foster student engagement in the learning process, which many students find beneficial and research has shown to decrease attrition, enhance learning outcomes, and improve student satisfaction at a great deal.

Dekanter (2005) stated that by providing a constructivist learning environment, help weaves together the essential and interdependent ingredients for productive learning. Collaborative activities are absolutely necessary to incorporate in to the course, however content is crucial in all forms, both web-based and face-to-face, and the activities should not deviate the course content completely (Wang, 2007). Designing course-related interactive activities would help learners develop higher-order thinking skills by prompting learners to relate new knowledge to prior understanding. Also, it will help students to think in both abstract and conceptual terms, apply specific strategies in novel tasks, and understand their own thinking and learning strategies better.

<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 14pt;">CONCLUSION

Collaborative learning is a process that advances student learning in the classroom. Collaboration occurs when individual peers redefine themselves as a group. Forming groups enhance student learning and through this learning process, students also rediscover their own individual ideas as they develop higher-level reasoning skills and strategies. Applying collaborative learning techniques in the online classroom promotes active student involvement in

the learning process. Through the Learning Management System (LMS), students are constantly in touch with the course facilitator, which gives a new dimension to quality improvement in the process of education. As the students intensively use new technologies during the ten-week course term, this way the students are well-prepared through the course facilitation for a life-long learning. In addition to a general course evaluation, students’ feedback is worth expected from each peer collaboration exercise, particularly those that are newly implemented. Instructor should assess the course by reviewing the comments received from the students to adjust, abandon, or confirm the use of the exercises for future revisions when needed.

References Brown, A., Ash, D., Rutherford, M., Nakagawa, K., Gordon, A., & Campione, J. (1993). Distributed expertise in the classroom. //In G. Salomon (Ed.), Distributed// //cognitions: Psychological and educational considerations// (pp. 188-228). New York: Cambridge University Press.

Chickering, A., & Gamson, Z. (1987). Seven Principles of Good Practice in Undergraduate Education. //AAHE Bulletin,// Vol. 39, pp. 3-7.

Cress, U., & Kimmerle, J. (2008). A systematic and cognitive view on collaborative knowledge building with wikis. //International Journal of Computer Supported// //Collaborative Learning, 3(//2), 105-122.

Angelino, L. M., Williams, F. K., & Natvig, D. (2007). Strategies to engage online students and reduce attrition rates. //The Journal of Educators Online, 4//(2), 1-14.

Atkinson, R.C. & Shiffrin, R.M. (1968). Human memory: a proposed system and its control processes. In K.W. Spence & J.T. Spence (Eds.), //The psychology of// //learning and motivation: Advances in research and theory. (//Vol. 2, pp. 89-195). New York: Academic Press.

DeKanter, N. (2005). Gaming Redefines Interactivity for Learning. //Tech Trends.//49(3), pp. 26-31.

De Wever, B., Schellens T., Valcke, M., & Van Keer H. (2006). Content analysis schemes to analyze transcripts of online asynchronous discussion groups: A review. //Computers and Education, 46,// 6-28.

eCollege. (2012). //eCollege course management system.// Retrieved from [|http://www.eCollege.com]

Fernandez, M., Wegerif, R., Mercer, N., & Rojas-Drummund, S. (2001). Re- conceptualizing "scaffolding" and the zone of proximal development in the context of symmetrical collaborative learning. //Journal of Classroom// //Interaction,36(//2).

Hammond, M. (2005). A review of recent papers on online discussion in teaching and learning in higher education. //Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 9(//3).

Jorczak, R. L. (2008). //The effects of task characteristics on higher-order learning in online// //collaborative learning.// University of Minnesota. Retrieved from //ProQuest//.

NLC. (2011). National Leadership Council for Liberal Education and America’s Promise. //College Learning for the New Global Century.// American Association of American Colleges and Universities.

Palloff, R. M., & Pratt, K. (2007). //Building Online Learning Communities: Effective Strategies// //for the// //Virtual Classroom.// San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Pascarella, E., & Terenzini, P. (2005). //How College Affects Students:// //A Third// //Decade of Research, 2(//1). San Francisco: JosseyBass. Raaijmakers, J. G. W. & Shiffrin, R. M. (2004). Models of memory. In H. Pashler & D.

Medin (Eds.) Stevens' Handbook of Experimental Psychology, Third Edition, Volume 2: Memory and Cognitive Processes. New York: Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Rocco, S. (2010). Making reflection public: using interactive online discussion board to enhance student learning. //Reflective Practice//, 11(3), 307-317. Retrieved from EBSCOhost.

Schellens, T. & Valcke, M. (2005). Collaborative learning in asynchronous discussion groups: What about the impact on cognitive processing? //Computers in Human// //Behavior,// 21, 957-975.

Tennyson, R. D. & Breuer, K. (1997). Psychological foundations for instructional design theory. In R. D. Tennyson, F. Schott, N. Seel, & S. Dijkstra (Eds.), //Instructional Design: International Perspective, Volume 1: Theory, Research, and Models.// Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Tennyson, R. D. & Breuer, K. (2002). Improving problem solving and creativity through use of complex-dynamic simulations. //Computers in Human Behavior,// 18, 650-668.

Vygotsky, L. (1978). //Mind in Society: The development of higher// //processes.// Cambridge: Harvard University.

Wang, Q. (2007). A generic model for guiding the integration of ICT into teaching and learning. // Innovations in Education & Teaching International //, 45(4), 411-419. Retrieved from EBSCOhost.

Wiley, J., & Bailey, J. (2006). Effects of collaboration and argumentation on learning from web pages. In A. M. O’Donnell, C. E. Hmelo-Silver, & G. Erkens (Eds.), //Collaborative learning, reasoning, and technology// (pp. 297–321). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Assoc.