2. Walden University Tracy Snow

4.  Best practices  Interaction  Interactivity  Development of critical thinking skills  Co-creation of knowledge  Reflection  Transformative learning Palloff & Pratt, 2005

5. Instructors are always looking for ways to improve student interaction in classes. They understand that collaboration online is different than that of face to face. They may not have the necessary tools to make this happen successfully (Palloff & Pratt, 2005). Increasing opportunity for interaction is critical for online learning. Collaboration allows this.

7. Ling Thompson and Heng-Yu Ku from Regis University and the University of Northern Colorado conducted a case study to investigate the relationship between the degree of online collaboration and quality of group projects. They needed to find our how important collaboration was to online learners as they work on group projects, and how belonging to a community is essential in a collaborative learning experience (Kirschner, 2004; Palloff & Pratt, 2005). Their findings were based on four teams working in groups and their interactions. It was based on four different characteristics: participation, Interdependence, synthesis, and independence.

8. Project 1 & 2 Team 1Team 2Team 3Team 4 Total statements (participation) 952346686339 Interaction pattern(Interdep endence) 150189 New Ideas (Synthesis) 35269293221 Msg to Instr. (Independence 2910

9. Project 3 & 4 Team 1Team 2Team 3Team 4 Total statements (participation) 663n/a675219 Interaction Pattern (interdependence) 7n/a101 New Ideas (Synthesis) 294n/a29262 Msg. to instructor (Independence) 0n/a23

12. COMMERCIALIZATION There was no commercialization in this case study. For future studies, the need to implement technology will be investigated.  Degree of online collaboration and team performance.

13. Knowledge (professors realize the need to collaborate) Persuasion (Professors convince students to collaborate) Decision (Students decide or reject collaboration tools) Implementation (Students use the innovation of collaboration tools) Confirmation (Students reinforce the decision to collaborate and seeks to avoid discourse)

14. 1971 Email developed by Ray Tomlinson 1985 Development of virtual communities 1994 Ward Cunningham invented Wikis 1997 The term weblog was coined 2003 Skype was released, My Space becomes popular 2004 Web 2.0 released, Face book launched

15.  Working virtually is the next best thing that happened to us after the Fire and the Wheel. Working impeccably, across limitations, round the clock is the new way to work. Have you tried this way of working yet? I am talking about “’team work” and “collaboration”. So for teamwork to be effective, it’s important for individuals to adopt modern practices and technologies that help.

16.  Wherever you are, share your work in a simple and efficient way. This is where good online collaboration tools come in. If you’re contemplating adopting--or proposing the adoption of online collaboration tools, there are online collaboration benefits that may help you make a decision on this useful technology. Blogs, Wikis, and Skype are a few tools that enable people to communicate and collaborate online.

17. Content software Web page Communicatio n email Skype Collaboratio n Blogs Wikis

18. Content Web pageSoftware Search engines Communication emailSkype Discussion board Collaboration BlogsWikis Virtual communities

21.  The degree to which an innovation is perceived as being better than the idea it supersedes (Rogers, 2003). Online shopping has advantages over going to a store, driving in traffic, and waiting in lines.

22.  The degree to which an innovation is perceived as consistent with the existing values, past experiences, and needs of potential adopters (Rogers, 2003). Windows 7 replaced an earlier version.

23.  The degree to which an innovation is perceived as difficult to understand and use (Rogers, 2003). There are some innovations that are complex, but full of opportunities.

24.  It helps to be able to try innovations before buying. While this isn't common for most innovations it can reduce any uncertainty the buyer might have about committing to a purchase and can increase the speed of diffusion.

25.  When people can see an innovation being used, they are more likely to buy it. Examples are a car, homes, and computers. Innovations that are hard to see, diffuse slowly (http://openlearn.open. ac.uk/mod/oucontent/ view).

28.  Palloff & Pratt (2005). Collaborating online: Learning together in community. San Franciso, CA: Josey-Bass.  http://www.bloggingelements.com/online-collaboration-3-free- tools/  Rogers, E. (2003). Diffusion of innovation (5 th ed.) NY: Free Press.  http://lh3.ggpht.com/_pSamHFf_zL4/TDdS7glFYiI/AAAAAAA AEuo/hHf-XBe7Clc/Roger%20Model.jpg  http://www.shareasale.com/image/shareasale_728_1.jpg  http://www.msdev.com/IsvInnovationImage.ashx?pictureId=71 4  http://www.business-strategy- innovation.com/wordpress/2011/05/opportunities-and- complexity-in-innovation-ecosystems/ http://www.business-strategy- innovation.com/wordpress/2011/05/opportunities-and- complexity-in-innovation-ecosystems/

29.  http://www.marketingworksnow.com/Pictur esFiles/startup.jpg  http://www.eknowledgecenter.com/free_elea rning/images/Mod6_9.gif  http://www.adamdell.com/media/file/large /99_curious_crossing.jpg