Eileen A. O’Connor, Ph.D. Eileen.oconnor@esc.edu

Empire State College/ State University of NY

Background of course; requirements for complex collaboration

Research questions & course evidence Course components & results that:

Give evidence of process, quality and ownership

Outcomes & evidence Images from students’ pods Images from students’ website/wikis

Conclusions & ongoing improvements

Online course within the Master of Arts in Teaching program Pre-service and in-service K12 science

teachers Students already had one pedagogy

course & educational foundations course But from various instructors with different

tech & pedagogy expectations therefore, one could not be certain of a common background

Eight week summer course; during the last four week, there was a complex, collaborative project

In determining what elements of design, interactions, expectations, virtual building, and virtual presenting were effective in supporting collaboration on the inquiry-based science-project development, this author/instructor gathered evidence from processes and products within the course, including:

project delineation, considering the course elements of structure, expectations, and evaluation required for the brainstorming, project submission, peer voting, project-selection and team-assignment process;

peer interactions, surveying the weekly project-and-topic meetings that were conducted by teams within Second Life and reported to the class in a discussion board and the weekly individually-submitted task lists;

final products and presentations, observing, videotaping (within the virtual space), analyzing, and grading the presentations and projects within the Second Life pod and within the required project wiki/website, using the assigned criteria and the grading rubric;

student debriefings, reviewing their comments on their own work, on the work of colleagues, and on ways to improve the course in the future

While examining the course design, interactions, and results, the researcher included these questions in guiding the analysis:

What components seemed most effective in helping teams succeed with collaboration and with inquiry-based project development, given the complexity of the assignment, the limited time available, the diversity of students’ backgrounds and of prior experiences with the instructor?

How did the use of virtual spaces and the requirements of incorporating web 2.0 technologies contribute towards collaboration and towards science-project effectiveness?

How do you generate ideas and engagement, at a distance?

How do you address different skill levels? To allow for meaningful work within complex

environments While not creating a “technology only”

course? Thus a course design with:

Content area choice and delineation by the students

Teams created students select their areas Scaffolding & reporting

Topic & # of students Health (3)

Biodiv. (2) Fish (2) Rain (3) Solar car (3)

Ocean (2)

River (2)

Prior work w/ instructor 2 2 0 1 1 0 1

Student centered project Partial Yes Yes Yes Partial Yes Yes

Collaboration effectiveness

Good Good Poor Good Poor Good good

Student satisfaction Good Good Varied Good Varied Good Good

Instructor satisfaction OK Good OK Good Not OK Good Good

Exceeded expectations Yes Yes No Yes No Yes Yes

Final report quality Good Good OK Good Not OK Good Good

The poorest results came from the team that did not

collaborate

Required weekly interactions Task lists (check lists within a

spreadsheet) were also submitted weekly

Report out (to the instructor alone) at course end on level of participation

Student submitted self-evaluation

Taking pride in the virtual workspace Meeting frequently in space during the

development – most teams Adding more elements then required:

Only basic images & a wiki required Students added animations, furnishings,

and designs (OK, not always the most aesthetic; but

these are science, not art, students) See the next slides for examples

Added: plants

Second Life pod expectations were minimal, but students added more than required – from individual exploration & sharing with peers

Added: rotating spheres Added: circulatin

g fish

Genuine sharing, community & caring was evident; students asked relevant questions & added extending ideas – all at a distance

Rich projects – better than previous courses (students comments show pride & valuing)

Genuine valuing and application of 21st century technologies to the future K12 students; an expanded understanding of literacy

Peer teaching/learning – more skills evident then “taught” or even required

Responsibility and professionalism in the presentations – proud to share their findings

Maintain the overall course design It now has now been field tested & evaluated Capitalize on and extend the value of the

initial course development efforts, which was extensive

In courses such as these (which are NOT the students first pedagogy course), require that all students show some evidence of wiki/website skill At the least, make specific pages within the

project site that can be attributed to each student; an important skill today

Course themes and approaches that appeared to influence the effectiveness of the results Sequencing & scaffolding – built understanding

of requirements and staged Brainstorming and modeling – provided a rich

example Pacing, weekly reporting, and task lists -- kept

all teams on task and accountable Requiring a project wiki/website, a science pod

in Second Life, & presentations within the pod – developed pride and ownership; outcomes were “permanent” and shareable

Effectiveness of using web 2.0 and virtual technologiesDocumenting and guiding the process as well

as the content is quite possible onlineMaterials that have a face-to-the-public (the

website) can engender more ownership and pride

These students could not have worked together any other way – they were geographically dispersed