Assignment

Chapter 17 Assignment Directions:

1. You will participate in a structured debate discussion board on the free web tool at www.convinceme.net Click on the link below. Follow directions and sign up. Based on your last name you have either been assigned to the Asynchonous or the synchronous side of the debate.

Asynchronous = Names ending in A-M
Synchronous - Names ending in N-Z

http://www.convinceme.net/coldebate/6995/Synchronous--Asynchronous.html

The site will then ask you to register/sign in. Follow the prompts and fill out the information.
Once registered, you can search for our debate by using the search term “synchronous” or pasting this link http://www.convinceme.net/coldebate/6995/Synchronous--Asynchronous.html in to your browser.

Next VOTE! Then click on the “Add an Argument” link. A text box will open and you will post your argument following the criteria below.

By Saturday, April 23rd at Noon, Post one detailed response (200 words or more) to the following prompt based on your last name:

**Asynchronous (or Synchronous) discussion boards/chat/conferencing is the best approach because.............

Support your argument with all of the following components:

• At least three specific reasons and two tool examples ( use at least one  example  in our charts above and find one other tool not included in our charts. Please add web links to your response when mentioning a tool not listed in the charts above and also add the tool and a link to the charts).

• Explain how you could apply the tool in a face to face or online classroom. Eg. How would you structure the debate in an asynchonous discussion board, or how would podcasting be used as a mindtool. (include age or grade and subject), or how migh your class use a wiki tool.

• Include at least one reference to Jonassen.

By Monday, April 25th at Noon,  post two detailed rebuttal posts to classmates countering the points or argument they make. Response posts must be 150 words or more.

Please be respectful in your posts and use a neutral or friendly tone. Writing should be error free, spell-checked and formal.

2. By Wednesday, April, 27th - Post a reflective post to your individual course blog. You can discuss your experience this week posting to  a structured discussion board (Convicneme),  tools you explored, how you might use or apply tools and discussion boards in your own classroom, and your experience of an asynchronous presentation using screencasts and google docs and convinceme.net to communicate ideas and foster debate.

Structured Discussion Boards

Additional Structured Discussion Boards:

Structured Discussion Boards

• Argumentation, is quite different from normal "social chatter" and written assignments.

Three notable systems:

Belevedere

• Belvedere, according to Jonassen, provides conversation nodes
• hypothesis, data, principle, and unspecified
• for, against, and "and"

This is quite interesting because it seems sort of like a science project, a sort of trial and error situation. Thinking that these model and technological learning is linked to conceptual change as a part of trial and error. Hence, theories and processes not always true and can be altered in the future. Thus in conclusion it is always important and relevant to continue and keep on learning.

• in the Belvedere program, when students respond they must indicate response type.  a   question, a comment, a rebuttal, an alternative

Not only does this type of collaboration involve personal responses, however, the learner is gaining knowledge of argument types, such as a question, a comment, a rebuttal. This then becomes nature to ask a questions, comment, rebut and add alternatives effectively without repose or poise in normal conversation or educational social settings.  Thus, argumentation becomes healthy and adds to our well being!  That being said, the question, would you like to argue today, might simply mean, would you like to learn today?

Further in the section Jonassen discussed a more structured discussion board idea.  Wherearguments are to at times be presented with factual information in order to be considered valid or invalid arguments.


Convince Me (www.convinceme.net)

Using Convince Me, students can:                               
(1) articulate beliefs about a controversy
2) Categorize each belief as either evidential or hypothetical;
(3) connect their beliefs to support or reject a thesis;
(4) provide ratings to indicate the believability of each statement; and
5) run connectionist simulation that provides feedback about the coherence of their argument.
Because of this type of feedback Convince Me is considered as one of the most powerful argumentation tools available. 




University of Missouri Discussion Board

Discussion Board Rubric of Educational Technologies at Missouri

Message types

• Solution proposal,
• Reason to Support,
• Reason to Reject,
• Modify Proposal,
• Information of Facts,
• Personal Opinion or Belief,
• Personal Experience,
• Research Findings.

Each message type is of course defined by the instructor. Then the instructor specifies the relationships between message types.

Four types of statements in four levels: each level is represented by message types.

• problem,
• proposal,
• warrant, and
• evidence

At the problem level the instructor post a problem level statement.

Problem level statements can only be responded with proposal-level statements--

(Solution Proposal).

Solution proposals can only be responded with warrant-level statements--

(Reason to Support,

Reason to Reject,

Modify Proposal).

Warrant-level statements can only be responded with evidence-level statements--

(Information or Facts,

Personal Opinion or Belief,

Personal Experience,

Research Findings).

Modelling with Structured Discussion Boards:

Modeling With Structured Discussion Boards

Discussion boards are not normally considered modeling tools. However, when students use constraint-based discussion boards, models of collaboration are built and created verbally.  Thus, though the discussions are visual and most of the discussion is verbal Jonassens argues that  discussion boards are considered a modeling tool.

Coaching the use of Structured Discussion Boards

Jonassen  has created and provided for us a model upon which to follow when facilitating or moderating a structured discussion.  "Teachers as moderators of structured discussion boards need to be coaches, not sources of knowledge." (Jonassen, Modeling with Technology, p. 201)

1. Assure students that they can really communicate with the system. Motivating learners and overcoming phobias and anxieties is a critical process. Welcome each new user to the conference.
2. Ensure that learners have access to the computer network through directly-connected computers or computers with modems so they can log on frequently.
3. Provide active leadership. Start by playing host: Welcome participants to the conference and establish a nonthreatening climate.
4. Periodically summarize the discussion and make sure that it does not drift off the theme or become too fragmented. Ask participants for clarification of their ideas; resolve dispute or differences in interpretation.
5. periodically prompt nonparticipants to contribute ideas or reactions to the conference and reinforce their initial contributions. You may want to send students private mail that provides feedback or other interpretations.
6. Periodically ask engaging questions or submit issues that can clarify ideas or become a new focus for discussion.

Coaching with Discussion Boards

• Ask Engaging Questions
• Prompt Non-Participants
• Summarize the discussion
• Provide Active Leadership
• Ensure Access
• Assure students

Evaluating Structured Discussion Boards:

Evaluating Structured Discussion Boards

• Evaluate the quality of contributions. (Quality valued rather than Quantity)

Quality of student messages

 Low
Student messages confusing and disconnected;
contain hearsay,
unsupported remarks,
and personal beliefs

High

Students messages contain clear communication,

are supported by evidence,

represent accepted theories

Coherence of student messages

Low
Student messages not related to discussion topic,
redundant,
repeat other views;
irrelevant comments

High

Student messages explain issues,

provide new perspective,

make significant contribution to discussion,

elaborate on existing comments

Accuracy of student messages

Low
Student messages misclassified:
do not represent constraints consistently

High

Student messages consistently represent the

constraint imposed by the discussion board.

Relevance of student responses to messages

Low
Student responses irrelevant,
do not address issues;
non sequiturs

High

Student responses elaborate,

contradict,

modify, or relate specifically to previous message

This rubric above is provided in the text "Modeling with Technology," by Jonassen on page 203, Figure 17-4. He describes it for use when evaluating student contributions in asynchronous computer conferences.

Discussion Board Rubric of Educational Technologies at Missouri

Evaluated Student Contribution:

• Quality: Student messages contain clear communication, are supported by evidence, represent accepted theories.
• Coherence: Students messages explain issues, provide new perspective, make significant contribution to discussion, elaborate on existitng comments.
• Accuracy: Student messages consistently imposed by the discussion board
• Relevance: Student responses elaborate, contradict, modify, or relate specifically to previous message.

Advantages and Limitations:  
Advantages:

Networked computers are a great agent for propagation and dissemination of social skills (locally, regionally, nationally and internationally).
More interaction and involvement in computer conferences than face-to-face interchanges. Conferences reduce personal fears because of anonymity.
Are likely to enhance effectiveness of collaboration efforts by: improving access to other group participants, eliminating social distinctions and barriers between participants, contributing to a sense of informality, and fostering a stronger group identity.
Students may do their work when it is convenient or when they are most alert.
Students may argue a disagree without being involved in excessive conflict.
Discussion boards support collaborative learning.
Enhances the writing of apprehensive and nonapprehensive writers. Effective means for teaching collaborative problem solving and other tasks
Computer conferencing shows instructor contributions to be 10% to 15% of message level. This allows learners to generate questions, summarize content, clarify points, and predict upcoming events.

Disadvantages:
Users must be skilled as communicators; They need facility with the languages.

Users must be moderately skilled typists.

Times zones may delay conversations and may reduce impact of messages or feedback
Technophobia or communication anxieties may prevent individuals from participating. "Lurkers"

Anonymity may increase, rather than diffuse, anxiety
Conferencing may amplify social insecurities.

Absence of social context cues can make discussion more difficult.
Hardware and communication lines and equipment are not 100% reliable (loss of work, delay of communication).

Discussion Boards

Common Uses of Asynchronous Discussion Boards (Used on LMS’ such as Blackboard, Ecollege, Mypath, Sakai, etc.)

• Virtual Classroom
• Debate
• Role Play
• Simulation
• Knowledge base construction
• Long distance Learning/e-learning
• Social learning
• Collaborative learning/communication
• Active learning
• Responding to messages
• Problem solving
• Analytical thinking/ Higher Order Thinking

Problems with Discussion Boards:

    Lack of engagement: Students need clear expectations and grading rubrics.

    Expectations might include:

        Number of posts
        Frequency of posts
        Minimum word count for posts
        Examples of expected post content.

Below is an example of how an instructor might lay out expectations for a structured discussion. This is an example from a course I recently taught online. The expectations and the Rubric are created by and used in Baker College’s online General Education classes. It includes content and writing expectations along with examples.

Basic participation requirements are that you will make no fewer than two substantive posts per day, five days a week. To maximize your participation, remember the usual policies for discussion, including use of proper labeling and quoting from the post you are responding to.
Even though the post you are responding to shows up in your response window if you hit "Reply," that post doesn't "copy over" into your response. You must use the quote button or manually copy and paste it into the response.

Posts can count for 0-3 points, and up to 6 points per day are possible. No more than 30 points per Seminar are available.

Basic expectations for participation posts:

• Write original thoughts not already contained in the threaded discussion;
• Cite examples/ideas from the Internet or other sources. Please cite the URL or source referenced;
• Include a strong reason why when agreeing or disagreeing with other posts;
• Copy relevant part of previous message being responded to.
• Interact well with others by asking questions and keep the discussion going by helping your peers elaborate to keep the discussion going.

Participation post mistakes to avoid:
"I agree/disagree" with no reason or explanation/etc.
“Good job!” is not a substantive response.
Appropriate part of message being responded to is not copied into post.
Minimum content quality is not met.




For example.

	Excellent	Good	Acceptable	Less than acceptable	No Credit
Grade	A	B	C	D	F
Points	3-2.7	2.69-2.4	2.39-2.1	2.09-	0
Content	Post uses course concepts by referring to textbooks or resources and applying the information to an example. New information or question introduced.	Post uses course concepts by referring to textbooks or resources. New information or question introduced.	New information or question introduced.	New information or question introduced. It may be irrelevant to discussion or of poor quality.	Post does not contain new question or information.
Writing	Writing is clear and mechanically accurate.	Writing is clear and mechanically accurate.	Writing is clear and mechanically accurate.	Writing might contain mechanical mistakes but clarity is not affected.	Post might be poorly written.
Example	On page 30 of our text there’s a really interesting quiz on writing that really made me think about things in a different way.  I hadn’t stopped before to think about whether using company emails or computers for my own purposes might be bad.  Sure, I realized that taking office supplies from my employer is wrong, but I always assumed using my work email was fine.  I notice in Activity 1.13 that 34% of people who took the quiz said using company email for personal reasons is wrong. The other percentages in the responses on page 31 also made me wonder if I’m mis-using office resources.  I reviewed the employee information I was given when I was hired, but it doesn’t fully cover situations like email and general computer use. How can I be sure I’m not violating the ethics of my workplace?	On page 30 of our text , there’s a really interesting quiz on workplace ethics that really made me think about things in a different way.  I never stopped to think about how using company computers for personal business might not be acceptable.  How can I be sure I’m not violating the ethics of my workplace?	I use my work email all the time, and no one has ever said anything to me about it.  I figure if they expect me to be there eight hours a day, they should let me use my work email however I like.	I just finished reading the textbook and don't get it.	Whassup? When you think this week thought, want til next one.

Another possible problem is in the assigned task, topic or question. Instructors must design specific tasks, ask open ended questions that promote the type of thinking or learning required.

Possible approaches:

1. Require students post specifics questions  for classmates (similar to the HOTS             questions we have been posting to team maps).

2. Set up a debate format over one controversial issue. Require students to take a             position, support their position, post evidence to support their position, defend             their position against counterargument. From this structured debate learners can             identify strong vs weak arguments, fallacies, assess evidence and credibility of             sources, evaluate the     strength or weakness of their own and other’s arguments.

3. Problem/solution: Jonassen recommends setting up a problem that requires                 leaner collaboration to solve.