1. Panel Presentation by Judi Moreillon, Ph.D. Associate Professor, School of Library and Information Studies Texas Woman’s University, Denton ALISE Innovative Pedagogies SIG – Boston – January 2016 Images Provided by ApprenNet.com and Judi Moreillon

2. Share information about ApprenNet.com and connect its use to the literature (interactivity in the online environment and peer review). Share how the tool has been used in my courses. Share graduate students’ and my assessment of the tool. Provide resources for more information.

4. 47.5% of 61 ALA-accredited M.L.S. programs offer online degrees (Feldman, 2015, 5). 7.1 million online students (at least one online class) 2/3rds of chief academic officers reported concerns with the quality of online instruction (Babson Survey Research Group, 2013, p. 20). “…students desire a much greater level of interactivity than current learning environments provide” (Boston Consulting Group, 2014).

5. …instructors can improve retention by providing sufficient technological support, interactive learning activities, and a student-centered Web design (Youngju, Jaeho, & Taehyun, 2013). Students selectively access course content based on their perception of how materials will influence their performance and grades on assignments (Murray, Pérez, Geist, Hedrick, & Steinbach, 2012).

6. Research suggests complex learning is best developed when assessment, combined with effective feedback practices, involves students as partners in these processes (Taylor, Ryan, & Pearce, 2015). (Social media) peer feedback tools improved critical thinking skills and improvement of learning products students’ produced (Demirbilek, 2015). As the activity progresses, students increasingly display cognitive and metacognitive thinking in their peer feedback (Cheng & Hou, 2015).

7. Challenge and Students’ Video Responses Peer Review Expert Response Exercise Assessment and Analysis

8. Students watch a challenge video.

9. Students upload a video response.

10.  Students provide peer review feedback through a rubric (developed by the instructor) and offer narrative feedback as well.

12. 3: Students watch an expert’s response.

13.  Students assess their learning via the rubric and narrative feedback from their peers.  Students view the top-five rated videos. 4: Students review peer feedback.

14.  Instructors have access to reports.

15.  Increased interactivity  Must consider multiple responses while providing feedback  All voices heard and responded to through random assignment for peer review  Exposure to an expert response (may or may not be the instructor)  Feedback from peers as well as the instructor and/or expert

16.  77% (24) “liked” the format  100% cited specific learning outcomes from each of the three exercises  90% (exercise #1) to 100% (exercises #2 and #3) provided more than the required number of peer reviews  19% - 43% - 34% - at least twice the required number of peer reviews  Quality of peer reviews was high for 75% of students; the other 25% improved (over the course of three exercises)

17.  94% (29) - yes - would use it again  6% (2) – no – would not use it again “I would use this tool again because it allows students to apply real-world strategies in an engaging, useful format. It also allows students to obtain a number of alternative viewpoints with ease. This allows users to greatly benefit from their peers and incorporate new strategies.”

18.  “I think it's a good tool that allows students to gain real world experience, while applying what has been learned.”  “The preparation needed mimics the preparation you need for an interview or an important meeting- -extremely valuable!”  It was a new tool that gave collaborative learning a new dimension as it provided deeper analysis and synthesis as a responder and a peer reviewer.”  “The (Blackboard) discussion posts get very monotonous and it is much more engaging to write a script and then watch peers’ videos.”

19.  “I liked how the videos were selected randomly.”  “I enjoyed watching the videos and liked that everyone had an equal opportunity to be critiqued.”  “It was a good way for students to be forced to watch and provide feedback on other’s work.”  “It is a great way to share what others are doing in the class and receive comments.”

20.  Increased interactivity  Community building  Support for social constructivist teaching philosophy  Learners demonstrate thinking through their use of technology tools  Authentic opportunity to practice what I preach - (calculated) risk-taking with technology tools  Opportunity to compare my own assessment of students’ learning outcomes with students’ assessment of one another’s work

21. http://bit.ly/X6NrGu jmoreillon@twu.edu

22. ApprenNet.com: http://info.apprennet.comhttp://info.apprennet.com ApprenNet Help Page: https://apprennet.zendesk.com/hc/en-us https://apprennet.zendesk.com/hc/en-us ApprenNet Blog Post by Judi Moreillon: “All Voices Heard; All Ideas Considered” (November 17, 2014): http://bit.ly/1DOiRE7 http://bit.ly/1DOiRE7

23. Babson Survey Research Group. (2014). Grade Change: Tracking Online Education in the United States, 2013. Retrieved from http://sloanconsortium.org/publications/survey/grade-change-2013 Boston Consulting Group. (2014). Online Learning Consortium Report: “The Five Faces of Online Education: What Students and Parents Want.” Retrieved from https://www.bcgperspectives.com/content/articles/education_consumer_insig ht_five_faces_online_education_what_students_parents_want/#chapter1 http://sloanconsortium.org/publications/survey/grade-change-2013 https://www.bcgperspectives.com/content/articles/education_consumer_insig ht_five_faces_online_education_what_students_parents_want/#chapter1 Cheng, K., & Hou, H. (2015). Exploring students’ behavioural patterns during online peer assessment from the affective, cognitive, and metacognitive perspectives: A progressive sequential analysis. Technology, Pedagogy & Education, 24(2), 171-188.

24. Feldman, S. (2015). The future of the MLS. American Libraries, November-December, 5. Demirbilek, M. (2015). Social media and peer feedback: What do students really think about using Wiki and Facebook as platforms for peer feedback?. Active Learning In Higher Education, 16(3), 211-224. Moreillon, J. (2015). Increasing interactivity in the online learning environment: Using digital tools to support students in socially constructed meaning-making. TechTrends, 59(3), 41-47. Murray, M., Pérez, J., Geist, D., Hedrick, A., & Steinbach, T. (2012). Student interaction with online course content: Build it and they might come. Journal of Information Technology Education, 11, 125-140.

25. Taylor, S., Ryan, M., & Pearce, J. (2015). Enhanced student learning in accounting utilising web-based technology, peer-review feedback and reflective practices: a learning community approach to assessment. Higher Education Research & Development, 34(6), 1251-1269. Youngju, L., Jaeho, C., & Taehyun, K. (2013). Discriminating factors between completers of and dropouts from online learning courses. British Journal of Educational Technology, 44(2), 328-337. Judi Moreillon email: jmoreillon@twu.edujmoreillon@twu.edu