teachIT Interaction & Learning Unit offers 3-4 workshops on different types of Learning Activities each semester. Different themes proposed by the faculty groups. All workshops will offer an occasion to work with or discuss lecturers' own courses/supervision according to the theme. A typical workshop consists of: Presentation of a pedagogical method/principle/technology Plenary discussions, exchange of experiences, trial, brainstorm The next teachIT workshop is about the use of synchronous online meetings in learning processes. (Skype/Connect/chat inlearnIT). March 4, At least always a Friday from You are part of an explorative journey today – first time we try learnIT with participants

Participants list –teachIT –student online discussions NameAffiliationGroup NinaBoulusAssistant ProfessorTechnologies in Practice BjarkiValtyssonAssistant ProfessorDigital Cultura and Mobile Communication BoSvarreHead of programme AnetteKreutzbergExternal lecturerInnovative communication ClausBrabrandAssociate professorProgramming, Logic and Semantics JohnGøtzeExternal lecturerE-bussiness JesperLarssonAssistant ProfessorEfficient computation Louis-MarieTraonouezPost docProgramming, Logic and Semantics YvonneDittrichAssociate professorSoftware development YooFalk JensenE-learning consultantInteraction & Learning Unit AnneliseAgertoftPedagogical consultantInteraction & Learning Unit

Module 2 - Introduction to asynchronous online discussions Annelise Agertoft Experience from Master in ICT & Learning Used in transnational development projects Books and articles Literature in English: ”E-tivities” by Gilly Salmon

Strengths of asynchronous online discussions Based on principles of social constructivism Use others contributions to develop own critical thinking Construct new knowledge together Possible to reflect longer before answering than in face-to-face discussions Flexibility Even with 100 students everybody speaks Possibility to evaluate all students Social reinforcement Question: Other strengths of async. online discussions?

Length of discussion period Always set an exact start and stop time 2-3 days – Adequate if you want an intense but maybe not very elaborated discussion 1 week – Useful if you want the students to read some larger texts and integrate those in the discussion. Is also more flexible for students with other activities to take care of.

Protocols Choose an effective title for your message/post If you reply to someone and change the subject, change the subject title too 1 message/post = 1 topic Never more than ½ page pr. post. Less is more. People don’t have the time to read all you know about the matter Place new posts – in the appropriate module and – in the appropriate discussion and – as a reply (if it’s a reply), – and as a new discussion if it is new If your reply is referring to just some part of somebody’s post, then copy and paste their words into the start of your post. And give the post a specific title. Question: What else to remember about protocols?

Size of discussion group The size depends on at least two factors. Are students supposed to produce something together on the basis of that discussion? – If yes, then form smaller groups (up to about 5), because they will need in depth discussions and a lot of interaction. Are your students to a have just a broad discussion where many different points of views are requested in short messages? – Discussion groups can be much larger (maybe up to 15). But be aware of information overload

Netspeak Don’t use capital letters (that’s shouting) Acknowledge the others! You are all resources for each other Tell what your student fellow did well, before you disagree If you are personally provoked by a post, wait ½ day before answering Question: other netspeak issues?

Role of e-moderator 1/2 Take the time to plan Be very structured and precise about what you expect from your students = high level of interaction No discussions will happen just because you set up a forum Start out by taking on the role as e-moderator. An e-moderator doesn’t act as a topic expert but more as a process expert. Be very visible in the beginning! Collaboration and polyphonic discussions between students doesn’t work if the teacher always enters as the academic expert When the teacher writes, do it in an informal manner. Make students spend time on reflection rather than on perfect rhetoric contributions Now distribute the role as e-moderator to students (maybe distributed in groups) – and step back

Role of e-moderator 2/2 An e-moderator does not give the right answer to questions and does not critique discussions that are going on Sometimes sum up what has been said Point at interesting directions that the discussions might take subsequently Ask open questions that call upon reflection Invite students who have been silent for a while to share their perspective Tell who might have hidden competences that should be brought into the discussions Choose to (outside the learning environment) students who are taking over the discussion and ask them to leave some space for those with a slower pace Delete messages that are over the limit for acceptable conduct In some e-tivities choose to take on the very active expert role in the discussion. But then be clear about if from the start! Choose for each e-tivity if you are the a) expert, b) moderator, c) only evaluator

How to get interaction and genuine collaboration Choose an e-tivity that works with one or more intended learning outcomes Create e-tivities that can only be solved if the students collaborate Create an activity where they share the same goal and need each other for solving it Apply quantitative and/or qualitative evaluation criteria: Criteria must be announced to students beforehand (can be formulated as mandatory activity in the course description in the course base) Quantitative criteria – Ask students to post so and so many messages, and reply to so and so many Qualitative criteria – Ask students to post messages that add new information to the discussion – Posts that sum up previous contributions and point at new directions for the discussion – Criteria should be based on the intended learning outcome of the activity

Discuss in pairs How do you perceive the role as moderator/teacher/expert in online discussions?