Lawrence W. Sherman, Ph D. Department of Educational Psychology

1. Computer-Supported Intentional Learning Experiences and Cooperative Learning In Higher Education:A Web based “Chat Room.” Lawrence W. Sherman, Ph D. Department of Educational Psychology School of Education, Health and Science Miami University, Oxford, Ohio USA IASCE BOARD MEMBER http://www.users.muohio.edu/shermalw A presentation to the IASCE/JASCE INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE, JUNE, 2008 NAGOYA, JAPAN

2. Abstract of Session This “experiential” session will provide hands-on activities utilizing an asynchronius web-based “chat room” environment. Cooperative learning will be emphasized in all activities, especially positive interdependence in distance communication. Software will be distributed to participants.

3. I have provided an “On-Line-Discussion” site for participants of this session. It is available at the following address:

4. Introductions • Introduce myself • Introduce participants to each other • Do Circles of Learning to build community • Simulate an “On-Line_Discussion” • Demonstrate Program • Questions and answers

5. Five Basic Elements of Cooperative Learning • Positive Interdependence: • Individual Accountability: • Face To Face Interactions: • Heterogeneous Grouping: • Social Skills:

6. Some examples of pages from the On-Line Discussion sites

11. A Simulated example of the On-Line_Discussion Site: The Link here

12. Some Examples of student comments from their e-portfolios concerning the “On-Line-Discussions”

13. Netpost Reflections • Over the course of this semester, we have completed a reflection and reaction every week. They have been based on what we learned in class and I have found them to be very beneficial. They have challenged my mind and I have greatly enjoyed what my peers have had to say about each prompt. We have completed ten of these reflections and they are included in the next pages. You can also get to them by clicking on the following numbers: #1, #2, #3, #4, #5, #6, #7, #8, #9, #10.

14. Netpost Reflections I believe that this is an invaluable aspect of the class and should be implemented more in other classroom settings. By requiring students to personally respond to what they are learning about in class, it forces the students to critically think about the concept and put it into their own words, furthering their understanding of the concept. Additionally, it allows students to view one another's thoughts and ideas. This type of assignment could be given in any content area classroom. I can see myself using it in either my future math classroom or my future language arts classroom. Return to Index

15. Reflections: • EDP 303 Section A Online Discussions • I liked having a part of this class as reflections online. I felt it was beneficial to know other classmates thoughts on the concepts we have learned this semester. I also like how we could react to other students. I like the online discussion in that you gave us a topic but we were able to make it personal to us by showing how we can apply certain ideas in a classroom. INDEX

16. Reflections & Reactions • Reflections & Reactions were beneficial in allowing us to think outside of class over topics related to our discussion. Instead of having our own perspective we were able to see twenty-five others from our classmates. The only problem real that I had with reflections & reactions was sometimes not having access to a computer over the weekend, which resulted in either not posting or a late post. Another problem was having to depend on Miami’s server to be up continuously, which is a rarity. I can remember at least once when the entire internet on campus was down, and others when the server was down. However, I thought this was an excellent method to encourage outside thinking. • Return to index

17. Ten Pitfalls to Avoid The “pitfalls” follow:

18. Web Discussion Pitfall #1 Too much information • Problem. • Teachers fail to organize conversations, participants become confused. • Solution. • Plan and streamline course discussions. Plot the duration and focus of discussion threads. Have students take turns running discussions about course content

19. Web Discussion Pitfall #2 Students technologically handicapped • Problem. • Students are easily stumped by online tasks: • Cutting and pasting text on the Web; sometimes they lack Web expertise, misunderstand directions or are unsure what’s expected of them. • Solution. • Structure online activity. Provide guidelines for posting and pasting material, how often to comment, length of comments and what to say to them.

20. Web Discussion Pitfall #3Unjustified comments. • Problem. • Students comments lack justification. They often make assertions without provident evidence. • Solution. • Model ways to support arguments. In your own postings, cite research studies or theories to back up your comments.

21. Web Discussion Pitfall #4Making course content connections • Problem. • Students seldom connect their online comments to specific course concepts because they don’t realize they’re expected to, and they tend to speak anecdotally. Comments are often unrelated to course readings, theories or research topics discussed in class. • Solution. • Frame questions in terms of concepts. When posting a question for students, ask them to answer it using specifics from course readings

22. Web Discussion Pitfall #5Being too nice on the Web • Problem. • Students are too nice on the Web. Perhaps because students also see each other regularly face-to-face, and because their comments are recorded online, many hesitate to criticize. • Solution. • Encourage role-playing. Assign students to play out roles of devil’s advocate, pessimist, or optimist, to help them take different sides and spur debate.

23. Web Discussion Pitfall #6Camaraderie lacking • Problem. • Peer camaraderie is lacking. Students tend not to reach out to each other online as fully as they do face-to-face. • Solution. • Assign online buddies. Pair up students to help each other troubleshoot software problems and respond to one another’s questions about course content.

24. Web Discussion Pitfall #7Instructor preaching • Problem. • Instructors struggle to teach and not preach. Instructors easily fall into lecture mode, jeopardizing student interaction. • Solution. • Encourage students to initiate discussion topics. Require them to take turns running discussion threads about particular course readings.

25. Web Discussion Pitfall #8Forming communities of learners • Problem. • It’s difficult to form a “community of learners” online. Because students can’t see each other, it takes time for them to build trust and speak freely. • Solution. • Encourage students to interact casually. Allot discussion threads or areas for hanging out and personal introductions.

26. Web Discussion Pitfall #9 • Problem. • Web postings are time consuming to grade. Students often post large amounts of text, making it hard for instructors to keep up. • Solution. • Award points according to set criteria. Give points for posting regularly, interacting concisely with others and showing deep thinking, rather than for generating lots of text.

27. Web Discussion Pitfall #10Technology glitches • Problem. • Computers crash. Students’ computers or Internet connections may malfunction, or glitches may plague online discussion software • Solution. • Troubleshoot. Check in regularly to see whether students need help using the discussion software or whether you need to call technology support personnel about more serious software problems.

28. Three additional techniques:Adding “context” to messages • Reconstructed turn-taking • Repair • Formulations

29. Reconstructed Turn-taking Students cut and paste lines from others’ messages, paste them into a new message and respond to them in turn.

30. Repair Students correct, clarify or reorient comments made by other students by saying, for example, “I believe student X meant…” or “Building on student X’s earlier comment…” They can also repair comments they themselves have made.

31. Formulations Students summarize and assess where the conversation is headed based on previous messages --- for example, someone might say, “The tone of recent postings has changed, signifying a shift in the class’s thinking…” Sometimes students suggest new directions or topic shifts starting a new “thread”

32. Some useful References • Bonk, C. J. & Cummings, J. A. (1998). A dozen recommendations for placing the student at the center of Web-based instruction. Educational Media International, 35(2), 82-89. • Bonk, C. J. & Dennen, V.P. (1999). Teaching on the Web: With a little help from my pedagogical friends. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 11(1), 3-28. • Bonk, C., Wisher, R. & Ji-Yeon, L. (2004). Moderating Learner-Centered E-Learning: Problems and Solutions, Benefits and Implications. In Tim Roberts. (editor). (2004). Online collaborative learning [electronic resource] : theory and practice. Hershey PA : Information Science Pub. • Bonk, C., Wisher, M. & Nigrelli, M. (2004). Learning communities, communities of practice : principles, technologies, and examples. In Karen Littleton, Dorothy Miell, and Dorothy Faulkner (editors), Learning to collaborate, collaborating to learn. Hauppauge, N.Y. : Nova Science Publishers • Brody, C., Baloche, L, Schmuck, R., & Sherman, L. (2004). The past and future of cooperative learning: perspectives from leaders in the IASCE. A panel session at the IASCE conference, Singapore, June, 2004. • Hais, M. & Winograd, M. (200). Millennial makeover : MySpace, YouTube, and the future of American politics. New Brunswick, N.J. : Rutgers University Press. • Hall, R. (guest editor) (2000). The impact of the internet, multimedia and virtual reality on behavior and society. CyberPsychology and Behavior, 3(1), entire issue. • Hara, N., Bonk, C. J. & Angeli, C. (2000). Content analyses of online discussion in an applied educational psychology course. Instructional Science, 28(2), 115-152. • Littleton, K., Miell, D. & Faulkner, D. (editors). (2004). Learning to collaborate, collaborating to learn. Hauppauge, N.Y. : Nova Science Publishers. • Ludlow, P. & Wallace, M. (2008). The virtual tabloid that witnessed the dawn of the metaverse. Boston, MA: MIT Press.

33. Murray, B. (2000). Reinventing class discussion online. APA Monitor on Psychology, April, 2000, 54-56. • Roberts, T. (editor). (2004). Online collaborative learning [electronic resource] : theory and practice. Hershey PA : Information Science Publishers. • Sherman, L., McMahon-Klosterman, K., Meyer, S., and Stephens, P. (1994). "Kids Can Make A Difference, Too!": A demonstration of an interagency Collaborative Project using Cooperative Learning and Telematiques. A presentation to the 8th International Conference of the International Association for the Study of Cooperation in Education (IASCE), Lewis &; Clark College, Portland, Oregon, 9-11 July, 1994. • Sherman, L. W. (2000). Postmodern constructivist pedagogy for teaching and learning cooperatively on the web. CyberPsychology and Behavior, 3(1), 51-58 • Sherman, L. W. (2001). Cooperative learning and computer-supported intentional learning experiences. In Learning and teaching on the world wide web, Christopher Wolfe (editor). New York: Academic press, pp 113-130. • Sherman, L. W. (2004). Computer-supported intentional learning experiences and cooperative learning: the web based “Chat Room”. A presentation to the IASCE International Conference, June 21-24, 2004, Singapore. • Sherman, L. W., Schmuck, R., & Schmuck, P. (2006). Kurt Lewin's contribution to the theory and practice of education in the United States: The importance of cooperative learning. In (Janusz Trempala, Albert Pepitone & Bertram H. Raven, editors) Lewinian Psychology. Proceedings of the International Conference Kurt Lewin: Contribution "to contemporary psychology". Bydgoszcz, Poland: Kazimier Wielki University Press, p 191-207. • Totilo, Stephen (2008). Playing Games, The Nation, June 2, 2008, vol 286, no. 21, pp25-30. • WWWBOARD (1995) available from Matt's Script Archive at http://www.worldwidemart.com/scripts/wwwboard.shtml.

34. fINE • THE END