My tools subscribe to the first model mentioned by Anderson (2008), the community of learning model, as my LMS is set up such that the activities and assignments read like a traditional classroom with the purpose of the LMS being to have the students work within the technological environment as a means to expand their learning horizons rather than the LMS acting as a platform for distance learning. It is my hope than an LMS can be a balance for my middle school students that bridge their knowledge inside and outside of the classroom.
Discussion Forum (Asynchronous Communication Tool)
A single, simple discussion forum is easy to use with few steps involved and brings a collaborative venue to the course that allows (or sometimes forces) students to interact with each other about the subject matter. It allows students to post their work and receive feedback from someone other than the teacher and allows them to see both the quality and content of work from other students. Students are also exposed to opinions and perspectives that may challenge or inspire their own learning. Discussion forums are limited by the fact that since they aren’t in “real time” responses can be scripted and carefully worded (which may not necessarily be a negative thing when working with middle school students). As my target students are not as inclined to participate in face-to-face discussions, it is my belief that a discussion forum can be a low risk tool for them, especially for those students who have a difficult time articulating their thoughts with time constraints. Tone is also lost as is the nature of an asynchronous communication tool. Note that within my LMS there are several discussion forums, providing both entire class forums and small group forums. It is my hope that in facilitating discourse through these forums, my students will become a part of a community of inquiry, articulate their ideas to others and uncover misconceptions in their own thinking (Anderson, 2008, p.10). Anderson (2008) speaks of teachers modeling appropriate responses to discussion questions, particularly at the beginning of a course, and I have done this by setting the tone for responses in my “Icebreaker” discussion forum.
Chat (Synchronous Communication Tool)
I chose chat as synchronous communication tool because it too is relatively easy to use with few steps and students are familiar with using such devices. In my own practice, I am particularly interested in taking tools that students would use for play and having them use them for academic purposes. Chat allows for real time discussion and also forces students to adhere to a scheduled time. It is, however, limited by the fact that in Moodle students have to type their words rather than speak them, which can be onerous. Anderson (2008) notes that the issue of time zones can hinder synchronous communication, however, as I am operating in the K-12 context, my communication tools are targeting students who operate on very similar schedules within one time zone. Chat works effectively and presents students with a good introduction to using a synchronous communication tool in an academic environment. The required chat involves no teacher involvement which puts the responsibility on the students to organize their chat time and be accountable for showing up and participating – invaluable skills for middle school students. Note that within my LMS I have set up several different forms of chat rooms: a “help” chat that lists hours I will be present to speak with students, a study chat which is an optional forum for students to communicate in and a collaborative chat (Republic vs. Empire Chat) that is required in order for students to be able to complete a project. Like the discussion forums, my hope is that students will be able to see chat as a tool that can serve many purposes as opposed to just a one-dimensional component.
Chickering and Gamson’s (1987) Seven Principles for Good Practice in Undergraduate Education lists “encourages contacts between students and faculty” as part of good practice. I think that the communication tools I have chosen are appropriate for my target students as they rely on student participation without the expectation that myself, as teacher, will be running the show. They are tools that manifest themselves in ways similar to familiar tools for students such as MSN Messenger, Skype, Facebook etc. and are beneficial from an assessment perspective as they allow the teacher to have a record of participation.
References:
Anderson, T. (2008). Teaching in an Online Learning Context. In: Anderson, T. & Elloumi, F. Theory and Practice of Online Learning. Athabasca University. Accessed online 15 June 2009 http://www.aupress.ca/books/120146/ebook/14_Anderson_2008_Anderson-DeliveryQualitySupport.pdf
Chickering, A.W. and Gamson, Z.F. (1987). Seven Principles for Good Practice in Undergraduate Education. American Association for Higher Education Bulletin, 39 (7), p. 3-7.
Communication Tools – Activity and Rationale
My LMS is designed for grade 7 students who will be using the LMS to support their combined classroom and online learning. In Moodle, under “Ancient Rome – Module 4 – Government” I have designed an activity that deliberately requires a variety of interactions to take place online. This activity happens in four parts. First, students individually answer the question “Would you rather live in the Roman Republic or Roman Empire? Why? Make sure that you reference both religious reasons and political reasons for your decision”. Students then post this to the “Republic or Empire” discussion forum (visible to “separate groups”). Students are then required to respond to the answers of at least two other students within their small group. Once all members have posted, groups are required to plan a meeting time in their group chat room where they will discuss their ideas further and plan how they will proceed in undertaking the next part of the assignment. Coming back to asynchronous communication tools, students then engage with each other in Google docs, which requires them to collaboratively create a summary of their discussion and also create a pro/con list for living in each the Republic and the Empire. Once finalized, the assignment is submitted based on criteria that looks at evidence of participation (individual mark), clear summary, Republic pros/cons and Empire pros/cons (groups marks).
The assignment challenges my students’ ability to work within both asynchronous and synchronous environments. Students begin the activity in a very structured way – by posting an individual response and then responding to at least two other posts. By having students shift into collaboration through chat and Google docs, their ability to do group work without a face-to-face set up is challenged. The guidelines of the assignment and the prep done by the teacher in outlining expectations for group interactions serve as a support while students negotiate this new setting for academic communication. I think that the tracking tools provided by Moodle assist the teacher greatly with formative assessment and also serve as a reminder to students that their work is indeed being tracked. Discussion posts speak for themselves, chat is programmed to save discussions and the teacher is listed as a collaborator in Google docs so even though the teacher may not watch the entire assignment unfold, there is a chance to periodically check in and see how the assignment manifests. I don’t foresee any issues with this assignment although I know that students will want to work on this in class. I will be very clear with students that the purpose of this assignment is to work in the online context and they should complete assignments as assigned using Moodle’s communication tools and not in class, on the phone etc. I see this as an opportunity to observe students and survey them regarding which methods of communication they found to be most successful.