Virtual School Meanderings

January 15, 2019

Open Learning: The Journal Of Open, Distance And e-Learning, Volume 34, Issue 1, February 2019 Is Now Available Online On Taylor & Francis Online

No K-12 distance, online, and/or blended learning specific articles in this issue – but several articles that I know I will be reviewing personally.

Taylor & Francis Online - The new journals and reference work platform for Taylor & Francis
The online platform for Taylor & Francis Online content

Open Learning: The Journal of Open, Distance and e-Learning, Volume 34, Issue 1, February 2019 is now available online on Taylor & Francis Online.

Innovations in STEM distance education

This new issue contains the following articles:

EditorialInnovations in STEM distance education
Clem Herman & Diane Butler
Pages: 1-5 | DOI: 10.1080/02680513.2018.1554477

ArticlesTouching creativity; a review and early pilot test of haptic tooling to support design practice, within a distance learning curriculum
Lisa Jane Bowers
Pages: 6-18 | DOI: 10.1080/02680513.2018.1545637

Sonification of numerical data for education
Karen Vines, Chris Hughes, Laura Alexander, Carol Calvert, Chetz Colwell, Hilary Holmes, Claire Kotecki, Kaela Parks & Victoria Pearson
Pages: 19-39 | DOI: 10.1080/02680513.2018.1553707

Using a blended learning approach to support women returning to STEM
Clem Herman, Rosaria Gracia, Lesley Macniven, Bernie Clark & Geraldine Doyle
Pages: 40-60 | DOI: 10.1080/02680513.2018.1554475

The impact of technology on the teaching and assessment of ‘systems’ diagrams in two online environmental management modules
Andy Lane
Pages: 61-77 | DOI: 10.1080/02680513.2017.1384377

Teaching web technologies: understanding the tutor’s perspective
Chris Douce
Pages: 78-88 | DOI: 10.1080/02680513.2018.1483226

The perceptions of STEM tutors on the role of tutorials in distance learning
Anne Campbell, Anne-Marie Gallen, Mark H. Jones & Ann Walshe
Pages: 89-102 | DOI: 10.1080/02680513.2018.1544488

Student feedback to improved retention: using a mixed-methods approach to extend specific feedback to a generalisable concept
Carol Calvert & Rachel Hilliam
Pages: 103-117 | DOI: 10.1080/02680513.2018.1552580

How do tutors use data to support their students?
Steve Walker, Tom Olney, Carlton Wood, Anactoria Clarke & Moira Dunworth
Pages: 118-133 | DOI: 10.1080/02680513.2018.1554476

The American Journal of Distance EducationThe American Journal of Distance Education
Pages: 134-134 | DOI: 10.1080/02680513.2019.1563366

If you need any further help, please contact us at support@tandfonline.comPlease do not reply to this email. To ensure that you receive your alerts and information from Taylor & Francis Online, please add “alerts@tandfonline.com” and “info@tandfonline.com” to your safe senders list.

Taylor & Francis, an Informa business.
Taylor & Francis is a trading name of Informa UK Limited, registered in England under no. 1072954. Registered office: 5 Howick Place, London, SW1P 1WG.

Article Notice – Surveying The National Landscape Of Online Teacher Training In K-12 Teacher Preparation Programs

Similarly, I also don’t know how this came across my electronic desk near the end of last week, but it did.  I’m not sure if I have posted this before, but I figured twice wouldn’t be a problem if I had.

Abstract
2018. Journal of Digital Learning in Teacher Education. DOI: 10.1080/21532974.2018.1498040. Online teaching and learning and the need for qualified online teachers are on the rise across the United States. Currently, the majority of teacher preparation programs do not formally prepare teacher candidates to teach online. The purpose of this study was to gain insight into the ways teacher preparation programs are responding to the increasing need for K-12 teachers to be proficient in online teaching. A web-based, national survey gathered data from 215 participants, mainly deans and associate deans. Participants recognized the need for online teaching, but reported there are too many state requirements from their traditional teacher preparation programs leaving limited or no room to incorporate new curriculum on online and blended teaching methods. While undergraduate teacher preparation programs have limited or no room for other courses or initiatives, deans of graduate programs were generally more likely to support the inclusion of graduate degrees, optional courses, and/or certificates that prepare teacher candidates to teach online. Implications for teacher education are discussed.

Article Notice – Synchronous Teaching Techniques From The Perspective And Observation Of Virtual High School Teachers: An Investigative Study

I don’t know how, but this came across my electronic desk near the end of last week.  I’m not sure if I have posted this before, but I figured twice wouldn’t be a problem if I had.

  • July 2018
  • International journal of information and communication technology education: an official publication of the Information Resources Management Association 14(3):55-67
  • DOI:
  • 10.4018/IJICTE.2018070105
Abstract
This article describes how there are specific tools and techniques used by teachers in synchronous live-virtual classroom environments. Those items were investigated in this article. Data was collected from semi-structured, one-on-one interviews conducted with a purposeful sample of twelve identified “highly-qualified” teachers at a cyber charter school in Pennsylvania that administered mandatory online synchronous class sessions. Additional data was collected through observations of each participant in their recorded archived “synchronous live” class sessions. The results of the study detailed the use of tools and techniques in regard to engagement, assessment and classroom management.

 

January 14, 2019

Article Notice – Accessibility That Supports Literacy: Virtual School Course Design Teams’ Instructional Planning For Students With Disabilities

This was the third of the K-12 distance, online, and/or blended learning articles I references in Friday’s New Issue of Online Learning Journal Published entry.

Mary Frances Rice

 

Abstract

As more students with disabilities in K-12 settings enroll in online courses, virtual schools and programs are working make courses accessible through stronger course design. When course designers approach the issue of accessibility, they must comply with legal requirements and mitigate the challenges many students with disabilities face for literacy and learning. These challenges include less well-developed content vocabulary and background knowledge, as well as inefficient skills and strategies for engaging with and comprehending online text. This study describes phenomenological research where course designers worked to meet accessibility standards and promote literacies online for all students, especially students with disabilities. Four strategies for promoting accessibility emerged as findings: (1) composing clear articulations of learning outcomes; (2) promoting personalized and contextualized learning, and; (3) planning for visual and audio representation of concepts. However, course designers may need additional support for addressing the interplay between literacies that promote access and accessibility features that promote literacies.

Keywords

K12 online course design, collaborative online course design, instructional design for students with disabilities, course design literacies, accessibility in online courses

Full Text:

PDF

References

Adelstein, D., & Barbour, M. K. (2016). Redesigning design: Field testing a revised design rubric based of iNACOL quality course standards. International Journal of E-Learning & Distance Education, 31(2). Retrieved from http://www.ijede.ca/index.php/jde/article/view/976/1647

Archambault, L., & Crippen, K. (2009). Examining TPACK among K-12 online distance educators in the United States. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 9(1), 71-88.

Baker, F. (2016). Media literacy in the classroom (2nd ed.). United States: International Society for Technology in Education.

Barbour, M., Archambault, L., & DiPietro, M. (2013). K–12 online distance education: Issues and frameworks. American Journal of Distance Education, 27, 1-3.

boyd, D. (2014). It’s complicated: The social lives of networked teens. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Bullough, R. V. (1992). Beginning teacher curriculum decision making, personal teaching metaphors, and teacher education. Teaching and Teacher Education, 8(3), 239-252.

Cavanaugh, C. S., Barbour, M. K., & Clark, T. (2009). Research and practice in K-12 online learning: A review of open access literature. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 10(1) http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/607/1182

Cho, J. Y., & Lee, E. H. (2014). Reducing confusion about grounded theory and qualitative content analysis: Similarities and differences. The Qualitative Report, 19(32), 1.

Coiro, J., Knobel, M., Lankshear, C., & Leu, D. J. (2008). Central issues in New Literacies and New Literacies Research. In J. Coiro, M. Knobel, C. Lankshear, & D. J. Leu (Eds.), Handbook of research on new literacies (pp. 1–22). New York, NY: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates/Taylor & Francis Group.

Danforth, S. (2015). Under the mentorship of John Dewey: Democratic lessons for inclusive Education. In Foundations of Inclusive Education Research (pp. 133-148). Bingley, UK: Emerald Group Publishing Limited.

Dewey, J. (2013). The school and society and the child and the curriculum. Chicago, IL; University of Chicago Press.

Dikkers, A. G. (2015). The intersection of online and face-to-face teaching: Implications for virtual school teacher practice and professional development. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 47(3), 139-156.

Downes, S. (2012). Connectivism and connective knowledge. Essays on meaning and learning networks. National Research Council Canada. Retrieved from https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/4718/ee3c1930820e094552f0933cbc3b86548dbc.pdf

Drexler, W. (2018). Personal learning environments in K-12 setting. In R. Ferdig and K. Kennedy (Eds.) Handbook of research on K-12 online and blended learning (pp. 151-162). Pittsburgh, PA: ETC Press.

Finlay, L. (2009). Ambiguous encounters: A relational approach to phenomenological research. Indo-Pacific Journal of Phenomenology, 9(1), 1-17.

Freidhoff, J. (2018). Michigan’s virtual learning effectiveness report: 2016-2017. Retrieved from

https://mvlri.org/research/publications/michigans-k-12-virtual-learning-effectiveness-report-2016-17/

Freire, P., & Macedo, D. (1987). Reading the word and the world. Westport, CT: Bergin & Garvey.

Garcia, A., Seglem, R., & Share, J. (2013). Transforming teaching and learning through critical media literacy pedagogy. Learning Landscapes, 6(2),109-124.

Gee, J. (2008). Social linguistics and literacies: ideology in discourses (3rd ed.). London; New York, NY: Routledge.

Gemin, B., Pape, L., Vashaw, L., & Watson, J. (2015). Keeping pace with K–12 digital learning: An annual review of policy and practice. Evergreen Foundation.

Hammer, R., & Kellner, D. (Eds.). (2009). Media/cultural studies: Critical approaches. New York, NY: Peter Lang.

Hanington, B. (2015). Making methods work: 10 rules of thumb for design research. Archives of Design Research, 28(1), 41-51.

Hsieh, H. F., & Shannon, S. E. (2005). Three approaches to qualitative content

analysis. Qualitative Health Research, 15(9), 1277-1288.

Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), 20 U.S.C. § 1400 (2004).

Johansson‐Sköldberg, U., Woodilla, J., & Çetinkaya, M. (2013). Design thinking: past, present and possible futures. Creativity and Innovation Management, 22(2), 121-146.

Jones, R. H., & Hafner, C. A. (2012). Understanding digital literacies: A practical introduction. Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon; New York, NY: Routledge.

Jenkins, H., Ford, S., & Green, J. (2013). Spreadable media: Creating value and meaning in a networked culture. New York, NY: NYU Press.

Jewitt, C. (2009) Different approaches to multimodality. In C. Jewett (Ed.) Routledge handbook of multimodal analysis (pp. 28-39). London, England: Routledge.

Keefe, E. B., & Copeland, S. R. (2011). What is literacy? The power of a definition. Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 36(3-4), 92-99.

Kim, J., & Ryu, H. (2014). A design thinking rationality framework: framing and solving design problems in early concept generation. Human–Computer Interaction, 29(5-6), 516-553.

Kress, G. (2010). Multimodality: A social semiotic approach to contemporary communication. London, England: Routledge.

Kress, G., & Van Leeuwen, T. (2001). Multimodal discourse: the modes and media of contemporary communication. London, England: Hoddor Arnold Publication.

Lankshear, C., & Knobel, M. (2010). DIY media: Creating, sharing and learning with new technologies (New literacies and digital epistemologies). New York, NY: Peter Lang.

Lankshear, C., & Knobel, M. (2011). New literacies: Everyday practices and social learning (3rd ed.). Berkshire, England: Open University Press.

Leu, D. J., Kinzer, C. K., Coiro, J., & Cammack, D. W. (2004). Toward a theory of new literacies emerging from the Internet and other information and communication technologies. In R. B. Ruddell & N. Unrau, Theoretical models and processes of reading (5th ed., pp. 1570–1613). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.

Luke, A. (2004). At last: The trouble with English. Research in the Teaching of English, 39(1), 85–95.

Marshall, C., & Rossman, G. B. (2014). Designing qualitative research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage publications.

Marteney, T., & Bernadowski, C. (2016). Teachers’ perceptions of the benefits of online instruction for students with special educational needs. British Journal of Special Education, 43(2), 178–194.

Miron, G. (2016). Review of the policy framework for online charter schools. NationalEducation Policy Center. Retrieved from http://nepc.colorado.edu/files/reviews/TTR%20Miron%20Online%20Charters_0.pdf

Molnar, A., Miron, G., Huerta, L., King Rice, J., Cuban, L., Horvitz, B., & Rankin Shafer, S. (2013). Virtual schools in the US 2013: Politics, performance, policy, and research evidence. Boulder, CO: National Education Policy Center. Retrieved from http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED558723.pdf

Moore, M. G., & Kearsley, G. (2011). Distance Education: A systems view of onlinelearning, 3rd ed. Wadsworth Publishing Company. California, USA.

New London Group. (1996). A pedagogy of multiliteracies: Designing social futures. Harvard Educational Review, 66(1), 60–92.

Olson, M. R. (1995). Conceptualizing narrative authority: Implications for teacher education. Teaching and teacher education, 11(2), 119-135.

Picciano, A. G., Seaman, J., & Day, S. L. (2015). Online learning in Illinois high schools: The voices of principals. In T. Heafner, R. Hartshorne, & T. Petty (Eds.), Exploring the effectiveness of online education in K-12 environments (pp. 1-18). Hershey, PA: IGI Global.

Quality Matters. (2016). Course design rubric standards, 4th ed. Retrieved from

https://www.qualitymatters.org/qa-resources/rubric-standards/k-12-secondary-rubric

Rapanta, C., & Cantoni, L. (2014). Being in the users’ shoes: Anticipating experience while

designing online courses. British Journal of Educational Technology, 45(5), 765-777.

Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended by § 508, 29 U.S.C. § 794(d) (1998).

Rose, D. (2000). Universal design for learning. Journal of Special Education Technology, 15(4), 47-51.

Ruppar, A. L., Gaffney, J. S., & Dymond, S. K. (2015). Influences on teachers’ decisions about literacy for secondary students with severe disabilities. Exceptional Children, 81(2), 209-226.

Siemens, G. (2005). Connectivism: A learning theory for the digital age. International Journal of

Instructional Technology and Distance Learning, 2(1), 3-10.

Street, B. (1995). Social literacies: Critical approaches to literacy development, ethnography, and education. London, England: Longman.

Street, B. (2003). What’s “new” in New Literacy Studies? Critical approaches to literacy in theory and practice. Current issues in comparative education, 5(2), 77-91.

Street, B. (2005). At last: Recent applications of New Literacy Studies in educational contexts. Research in the Teaching of English, 39(4), 417–423.

van Manen, M. (1990). Researching lived experience. New York, NY: State University of New York Press.

Warschauer, M. (2004). Technology and social inclusion: Rethinking the digital divide. MIT press.

Watson, Pape, Murin, Gemin, & Vashaw (2014). Keeping pace with K 12 online learning: An annual review of policy and practice. Mountain View, CA: Evergreen Education Group.

Williams, D. D. (2013, October). Themes from case studies of evaluators’ lives. Presented at the annual meeting of the American Evaluation Association Education, Washington D.C.

Williams, D. D. (2011). Qualitative inquiry in daily life: Exploring qualitative thought.

Retrieved from https://qualitativeinquirydailylife.wordpress.com/

DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.24059/olj.v22i4.1508

Article Notice – Quiet Participation: Investigating Non-Posting Activities In Online Learning

This was the second of the K-12 distance, online, and/or blended learning articles I references in Friday’s New Issue of Online Learning Journal Published entry.

Lesley Wilton

 

Abstract

Despite the growth in online learning offerings in K-12 and higher education, limited research has been undertaken to better understand less visible online learning activities. Reading and rereading are not typically valued as important indicators of learning since number or frequency of entries, words or key phrases are usually visible and easily tracked. This paper addresses reading, writing and revisiting behaviours by cluster groups in eight online courses, and looks for patterns related to rereading. Participant perceptions of the value of rereading entries in online learning are discussed. The findings highlight the importance of a more nuanced understanding of the different roles reading and rereading play in online learning discussions. This research informs our understanding of the importance of non-posting behaviors to student learning. Instructionally, these results may encourage valuing of different “paths” to online learning success beyond the criterion of written entries.

Despite the growth in online learning offerings in K-12 and higher education, limited research has been undertaken to better understand less visible online learning activities. Reading and rereading are not typically valued as important indicators of learning since number or frequency of entries, words or key phrases are usually visible and easily tracked. This paper addresses reading, writing and revisiting behaviours by cluster groups in eight online courses, and looks for patterns related to rereading. Participant perceptions of the value of rereading entries in online learning are discussed. The findings highlight the importance of a more nuanced understanding of the different roles reading and rereading play in online learning discussions. This research informs our understanding of the importance of non-posting behaviors to student learning. Instructionally, these results may encourage valuing of different “paths” to online learning success beyond the criterion of written entries.

Keywords

Online learning discussions, rereading, revisiting, non-posting participation

Full Text:

PDF

References

Barbour, M. K. & LaBonte, R. (2017). State of the Nation: K-12 E-Learning in Canada, 2017 Edition. Retrieved from http://k12sotn.ca/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/StateNation17.pdf

Bhattacharya, H. (2008). Interpretive research. In Lisa M. Given (Ed.), The Sage encyclopedia of qualitative research methods (pp. 465–468). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Blatter, J. K. (2008). Case study. In Lisa M. Given (Ed.), The Sage encyclopedia of qualitative research methods (pp. 68–71). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Bonk, C. J., & Cunningham, D. J. (1998). Searching for learner-centered, constructivist, and sociocultural components of collaborative educational learning tools. In C.J. Bonk & K. S. King (Eds.), Electronic collaborators: Learner-centered technologies for literacy, apprenticeship and discourse (pp. 25–50). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Creelman, A. (2017). NVL: Silent learners—a guide. Retrieved from http://lnu.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:1171709/FULLTEXT01.pdf

Creswell, J. W., & Plano Clark, V. L. (2011). Designing and conducting mixed methods research (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Creswell, J. W. (2013). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Dennen, V. P. (2006). Shaping Learners’ Online Dialogues: The Role of Discourse Models. Technology, Instruction, Cognition and Learning, 3, 249-264.

Dennen, V. P. (2008). Looking for evidence of learning: Assessment and analysis methods for online discourse. Computers in Human Behavior, 24, 205–219.

Dennen, V. P., & Wieland, K. (2007). From interaction to intersubjectivity: Facilitating online group discourse processes. Distance Education, 28(3), 281–297. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01587910701611328

Ebner, M., & Holzinger, A.. (2005). Lurking: an underestimated human-computer phenomenon. IEEE 12(4), 70-75. doi 10.1109/MMUL.2005.74

Goodfellow, R. (2004). Online literacies and learning: Operational, cultural and critical dimensions. Language and Education, 18(4), 379-399.

Green, S. B. & Salkind, N. J. (2011). Using SPSS for Windows and Macintosh: Analyzing and Understanding Data. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Guba, E. G., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1994). Competing paradigms in qualitative research. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 105-117). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage

Harasim, L. (2012). Learning Theory and Online Technologies. New York, NY: Routledge.

Ho, C.-H., & Swan, K. (2007). Evaluating online conversation in an asynchronous learning environment: An application of Grice’s Cooperative Principle. Internet and Higher Education, 10, 3-14.

Hrastinski, S. (2008). What is online participation? A literature review. Computers & Education, 51, 1755-1765.

Hrastinski, S. (2009). A theory of online learning as online participation. Computers & Education, 52, 78-82.

John-Steiner, V., & Souberman, E. (1978). Afterword. In M. Cole, V. John-Steiner, S. Scribner, & E. Souberman (Eds.), Mind in society: the development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University.

Johnson, L., Adams Becker, S., Cummins, M., Estrada, V., Freeman, A., & Ludgate, H. (2014). NMC Horizon Report: 2014 K-12 Edition. Austin, Texas: The New Media Consortium. Available at http://cdn.nmc.org/media/2014-nmc-horizon-report-k12-EN.pdf

Knobel, M., & Lankshear, C. (2015, June 3). Researching and understanding new literacies from a social languages perspective. Opening keynote paper presented at the Futuuri! Language Summer School and the Language Centre Conference, Jyvaskyla, Finland. Retrieved from http://www.academia.edu/12829531/Researching_and_Understanding_New_Literacies_from_a_Social_Languages_Perspective

Kvale, S. (2007). Analyzing interviews. In S. Kvale (Ed.), Doing Interviews (pp. 102–120). London, England: Sage Publications. http://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781849208963.n9

Lankshear, C., & Knobel, M. (2004, December 2). “New” literacies: research and social practice. Plenary address at the Annual Meeting of the National Reading Conference, San Antonio, TX. Retrieved from http://everydayliteracies.net/files/nrc.html

Lankshear, C., & Knobel, M. (2007). Sampling “the New in New Literacies.” In M. Knobel & C. Lankshear (Eds.), A new literacies sampler (pp. 1–24). New York, NY: Peter Lang.

Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning. Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Means, B., Toyama, Y., Murphy, R., Bakia, M., & Jones, K. (2010, September). Evaluation of evidence-based practices in online learning: A meta-analysis and review of online learning studies. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved from http://www2.ed.gov/rschstat/eval/tech/evidence-based-practices/finalreport.pdf

Nagel, L., Blignaut, A. S., & Cronjé, J. C. (2009). Read-only participants: A case for student communication in online classes. Interactive Learning Environments, 17(1), 37–51.

Nonnecke, B. & Preece, J. (2003). Chapter 6: Silent Participants: Getting to know lurkers better. In C. Lueg & D. Fisher (Eds.) From Usenet to CoWebs: Computer Supported Cooperative Work, pp. 110-132).

Perkins, J. & Newman, K. (1996). Two archetypes in e-discourse: Lurkers and Virtuosos. International Journal of Educational Telecommunications 2, 155-170.

Peters, V. L. & Hewitt, J. (2010). An investigation of student practices in asynchronous computer conferencing courses. Computers & Education, 54(4). 951-961.

Picciano, A. G. (2016). Paradigms, methodologies, methods, and the role of theory in online and blended learning research. In C. D. Dziuban, A. G. Picciano, C. R. Graham, & P. D. Moskal (Eds.), Conducting research in online and blended learning environments: New pedagogical frontiers (pp. 12–27). New York, NY: Routledge.

Rourke, L., & Kanuka, H. (2009). Learning in communities of inquiry: A review of the literature. Journal of Distance Education, 23(1), 19-48. Retrieved from http://www.jofde.ca/index.php/jde/article/view/474/815

Rovai, A. P. (2000). Building and sustaining community in asynchronous learning networks. The Internet and Higher Education, 3, 285−297.

Sipe, L., & Constable, S. (1996). A chart of four contemporary research paradigms: Metaphors for the modes of inquiry. Taboo: The Journal of Culture and Education, 153–163.

Sutton, L. (2001). The principle of vicarious interaction in computer mediated communications. International Journal of Educational Telecommunications, 7(3), 223-242).

Swan, K. (2001). Virtual interaction: Design factors affecting students’ satisfaction and perceived learning in asynchronous online courses. Distance Education, 22(2), 306-331.

Swan, K., Shen, J. & Hiltz, S. R. (2006). Assessment and collaboration in online learning. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 10(1), 45-62.

Vogler, J. S., Schallert, D. L., Park, Y., Song, K., Chiang, Y. V., Jordan, M. E., Lee, S., Cheng, A. J., Lee, J., Park, J., & Sanders, A. J. Z. (2013). A microgenetic analysis of classroom discussion practices: How literacy processes intermingle in the negotiation of meaning in an online discussion. Journal of Literacy Research, 45(3), 211–239. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1086296X13499846

Vygotsky, L. (1986). Thought and language. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.

Author, (2017).

Author, (2015).

Wise, A. F., Perera, N., Hsiao, Y., Speer, J., & Marbouti, F. (2012). Microanalytic case studies of individual participation patterns in an asynchronous online discussion in an undergraduate blended course. The Internet and Higher Education, 15(2), 108-117.

Wise, A.F., Hausknecht, S., & Zhao, Y. (2013a). Relationships between listening and speaking in online discussions: An empirical investigation. In N. Rummel, M. Kapur, M. Nathan & S. Puntambekar (Eds.) Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Computer Supported Collaborative Learning Vol I (pp. 534-541). Madison, Wisconsin.

Wise. A. F., Speer, J., Marbouti, F., & Hsiao, Y. T. (2013b). Broadening the notion of participation in online discussions: Examining patterns in learners’ online listening behaviors. Instructional Science, 41(2), 323-343.

Yin, R. K. (2014). Case Study Research: Design and Methods, (5th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.24059/olj.v22i4.1518

Next Page »

Blog at WordPress.com.