Reading Notes. Salmon (2013) Cpt 3

Salmon, G. (2013) E-tivities: the key to active online learning. ProQuest (Firm). Chapter 3: ‘Creating e-tivities, pages 46-61

The purpose of e-tivities is to engage participants to enable them to reach their LO’s. This of the e-tivity as an invitation… you ant a response from the learners, you want engagement, do not lose sight of this. (“This is a social learning event” pp 46)

Take note of active engagement, participation and emotional aspects of learning- encouraging deep learning by using this framework.

Purpose of the E-vitivity:

What objectives do you want to achieve?

“There’s great value in driving an e-tivity from a ‘problem’ or challenge. See, for example, Savin-Baden and Wilkie (2006).”

Salmon, (2013) talks about how thinking about the outcomes in a constructivist approach, you can think of the challenge as  the ‘purpose’ of the e-tivity / objectives. Shows a broader framework and intention to the learning. Key to motivation!

“At Stages 1, 2 and 3, you will need to state the purpose clearly at the beginning of the e-tivity. At Stages 4 and 5, purposes can be more negotiable or variations negotiated. This is how participants start to gain ownership of the learning shared understanding is needed of the task with which the participants are engaged. This is why careful pacing and consistent, clear instructions are critical.” page 47

“Biggs and Tang (2011) offer us the idea of ‘alignment’ in teaching and assessment.”

A way to bring in integration between e-tivity  and assessment for me would be to use a reflective and collaborative outcome. This would create alignment between teaching, learning  and non-assessment.

“designers and e-moderators need to be both sensitive and maintain appropriate authority (Reilly, Gallagher-Lepak and Killion, 2012).”

“if you succeed in getting groups of participants working productively together at Stages 4 and 5, then they are already involved in mutual and supportive feedback and in evaluation of each other’s work through their ongoing interaction (Crosta and McConnell, 2008; McConnell, 2006)”

For non-motivated/ time poor/ pragmatic individuals they might need to be clearly told how the e-ctivity is beneficial to their leaning and to allow them to appreciate.

Without grading or formal assessment means within my teaching “Inevitably, what you will look for in assessment is the outcome that you hoped for, as well as any valid outcomes that you didn’t plan for” page 48.

Technology can be used to cheat – but as non-written outcomes, this is currently not an issue for me and my students. Something which I should consider though is what is collaborating and what is cheating. In creative subjects projects are often worked on collaboratively, so this is something I need to be aware of. If I apply my course to an institution then I can look at my universities policies on plagiarism or take a look at www.plagerism.org or on Joint Information Systems Committee (JISC, 2012) website.

“Focusing on participation and contribution reduces the opportunities for plagiarism” page 49

Consider giving intrinsic and extrinsic rewards for group work as a further reward other than assessment.

Scaffold students through e-tivity to avoid plagiarism.

E-tivity Actions

Be very clear with your verbs. Use: ‘post’ or ‘respond to’

Emotional interference: Frustration/ anger – technology not working properly. Stage 1&2

Emotions with other participants at 3 or 4

Stage 5 normally can handle it.

Enable Collaboration

Students enjoy learning from each other, learning by hearing experiences from others. For this reason, add group work to a course.

How can we relate ‘tutorials’ or ‘seminars’ into online learning situations?

Interactions from peers with e-moderators.

“Without careful structuring, it is unlikely that discussion will move beyond, at best, sharing of information, support and encouragement (Jaques and Salmon, 2008).” Page 50

More in depth learning through groups is likely to happen at stages 3 and 4.

Co-operative working -the group members help each other towards individuals’ goals.

Collaborative working-often linked with practice or knowledge construction, working together towards a group goal.

“participants can comprehend, evaluate, debate, question, integrate and synthesize information online, with suitable e-tivities and ongoing support” page 50

Build in Reflection

“Some writers argue that reflection is essentially an independent activity. Other writers stress the importance of collaboration to the reflection process.”

Schön (1983): Reflection on Action,  reflection after practice has been completed. Reflection in Action: the thinking that takes place during teaching. Ross, (2012) says that both are valuable.

Ask students to relay a past thought before introducing the next point of learning. This allows for the last piece of knowledge to be interrogated and challenged before moving on. A positive of this promotes creativity and independence without repeating or creating unconscious assumptions.

Scaffold students to start sentences with ‘I’ and then end with a question to open conversation to others to collaborate with reflections.

Indicate to students why you are asking them to reflect. Be open with the benefits.

The precisions:

Titles for invitations: headlines, entice, invite students to take part. Use numbers to indicate stages and timings or sequences. Makes archiving and creates focus.

E-tivity time:

“Working asynchronously involves a radical rethink—not only of learning or teaching time but also of other aspects of life (Carmel and Espinosa, 2011)” page 53

Regular activities can act as a framework to pace the course. Provide interest and motivation throughout. ‘felt time’ how connected and engaged we feel.

Chunks of tasks can allow students to complete tasks piece by piece and allow personal satisfaction.

Make e-tivities accessible on mobile devices as most online activities will be completed on the move or punctuated throughout a day around other day to day tasks.

Create Rhythm

Popping in to check back on progressing conversations. To take part and contribute. Offer opportunities, and feedback, instead of having one or two large e-tivity, have a few smaller ones which seem more achievable. Have small quizzes to allow for small points of personal feedback.

Design for Equality

Fairness and equality for all can be challenging (Dirckinck-Holmfeld, Hodgson and McConnell, 2012; Hodgson, 2008)

“What you can do is to ensure that online behaviours—what you ask people to do and say—do not reinforce or act upon a stereotype” page 57

Number of participants

Smaller groups are easier to work together online – this is because participants can quickly get to know each other. This encourages interaction and participation. Groups of 12 – 20 work well as groups can be divided easily. 1 moderator per 20 students. With larger groups you run the risk of participants not participating. Any more can create lurking or people not taking part as others have already.

With smaller groups – of say 6, if people drop out then students don’t get the same all round engaging experience and is not self sustaining.

Writing Invitations

“In on-screen text messages, people tend to write as if they were talking (Crystal, 2004)” page 59

Be specific about what you want your students to achieve and do.

Start with a bit of information or knowledge to spark conversation.

Create a dilemma or problem, or challenge or model.

Keep sentences and paragraphs short.

Ask for views, experience, or information for students to react to.

References

Biggs, J. B., & Tang, C. (2011). Teaching for quality learning at university (4th ed.). Open University Press.

Carmel, E., and Espinosa, J.A. (2011). I’m working while they’re sleeping: Time zone separation, challenges and solutions. USA: Nedder Stream Press

Crosta, L., and McConnell, D. (2008, May). Online learning groups’ development: A grounded international comparison. Paper presented at the 6th Annual International Conference Networked Learning, Halkidiki, Greece. Retrieved November 7, 2012, from: www.networkedlearningconference.org.uk/past/nlc2008/abstracts/PDFs/Crosta_61–68.pdf

Dirckinck-Holmfeld, L., Hodgson, V., and McConnell, D. (Eds.) (2012). Exploring the theory, pedagogy and practice of networked learning. New York: Springer. Eden, C. (2004). Analyzing cognitive maps to help structure issues or problems. European Journal of Operational Research, 159(3), 673–686.

Jaques, D., and Salmon, G. (2008). Learning in groups: A handbook for face-to-face and online environments (4th ed.). London and New York: Routledge.

Reilly, J., Gallagher-Lepak, S., and Killion, C. (2012). ‘Me and my computer’: Emotional factors in online learning. Nursing Education Perspectives, 33(2), 100–105.

Ross, J. (2012). Just what is being reflected in online reflection? New literacies for new media learning practices. In L. Dirckinck-Holmfeld, V. Hodgson, and D. McConnell (Eds.), Exploring the theory, pedagogy and practice of networked learning (pp. 191–207). New York: Springer.

Savin-Baden, M., and Wilkie, K. (Eds.) (2006). Problem-based learning online. New York: Open University Press.

Schön, D. (1983). The reflective practitioner. New York: Basic Books.