View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

Design Lessons about Participatory Self-Directed Online Learning in a Graduate-Level Instructional Technology Course

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: Design Lessons about Participatory Self-Directed Online Learning in a Graduate-Level Instructional Technology Course
Language: English
Authors: Yamagata-Lynch, Lisa C., Do, Jaewoo, Skutnik, Anne L., Thompson, Duren J., Stephens, Adam F., Tays, Cheryl A.
Source: Open Learning. 2015 30(2):178-189.
Availability: Routledge. Available from: Taylor & Francis, Ltd. 325 Chestnut Street Suite 800, Philadelphia, PA 19106. Tel: 800-354-1420; Fax: 215-625-2940; Web site: http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals
Peer Reviewed: Y
Page Count: 12
Publication Date: 2015
Document Type: Journal Articles
Reports - Research
Education Level: Higher Education
Postsecondary Education
Descriptors: Graduate Students, Graduate Study, Self Directed Groups, Online Courses, Educational Environment, Asynchronous Communication, Synchronous Communication, Curriculum Design, Assignments, Cooperative Learning, Cooperative Planning, Formative Evaluation, Active Learning, Blended Learning, Learning Activities, Educational Technology, Feedback (Response), Educational Practices
Geographic Terms: Tennessee
DOI: 10.1080/02680513.2015.1071244
ISSN: 0268-0513
Abstract: This article reports on a case of participatory self-directed online learning within the context of a graduate-level instructional technology course. The course was about online learning environments and relied on both asynchronous and synchronous technologies. In this case, the instructor and students engaged in collaborative course design through one of the assignments where student teams and the instructor led one week's worth of course activities and discussions. This article begins with a discussion of the literature on participatory self-directed online learning. Then, the article presents an overview of the course design, detailed discussion of the assignment that framed student participatory self-directed learning and two examples of student assignments. The framing question for organising this case was as follows: What lessons can a team of graduate students and the instructor learn about self-directed participatory online learning from a collaborative design project? The article ends with the overall lessons learned from the case and implications to future design of online activities.
Abstractor: As Provided
Number of References: 41
Entry Date: 2015
Accession Number: EJ1076231
Database: ERIC
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
    Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwEnSS3JXN6x42D9IoBsDLztAAAA4zCB4AYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHSMIHPAgEAMIHJBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDAbxPeobr4Zo-L_TQwIBEICBm6oR6RBJQ0hn7tzrqLwX7MacqDzopcMKIg41G7lMDzRkKoX9rDuAr7Fo2pbrfDI80DyYaRbdhtEF7e-ZOOMGN2ROnC8L3NHgEoWgKe-bxxYy0e9TbogwcqrM8hM5slBa8IiRY6kgIwQwMNf43hR_zIrGUNSe_F8Cb2bojGIpab9IC_BehKiY3yLyjic-XCoZQqQ-oMgcOOx70oSN
Text:
  Availability: 1
  Value: <anid>AN0110068735;bbx01jun.15;2019Feb28.14:36;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0110068735-1">Design lessons about participatory self-directed online learning in a graduate-level instructional technology course. </title> <p>This article reports on a case of participatory self-directed online learning within the context of a graduate-level instructional technology course. The course was about online learning environments and relied on both asynchronous and synchronous technologies. In this case, the instructor and students engaged in collaborative course design through one of the assignments where student teams and the instructor led one week's worth of course activities and discussions. This article begins with a discussion of the literature on participatory self-directed online learning. Then, the article presents an overview of the course design, detailed discussion of the assignment that framed student participatory self-directed learning and two examples of student assignments. The framing question for organising this case was as follows: What lessons can a team of graduate students and the instructor learn about self-directed participatory online learning from a collaborative design project? The article ends with the overall lessons learned from the case and implications to future design of online activities.</p> <p>Keywords: self-directed learning; online learning; participatory learning; instructional technology</p> <p>This article is about a case of a graduate-level instructional technology online course offered over 15 weeks at the University of Tennessee (UT) in the United States. The course itself was about online learning environments and the instructor and participants collaboratively shared the responsibilities for leading weekly topics. The course relied on both asynchronous and synchronous technologies to facilitate course communications, meetings and small group activities. The first author of this article was the instructor of the course and the remaining authors were course participants who volunteered to share their authored activities and participate in preparing this case.</p> <p>This article begins with a discussion of the literature on participatory learning, self-directed learning and collaborative course design. Then, we present an overview of the course, discussions of the assignment that guided the collaborative design and descriptions of weekly activities. We present two sample student-designed weekly team activities and outcomes from those activities as data for this case. We end our discussion with overall lessons learned from the case.</p> <hd id="AN0110068735-2">Participatory online learning</hd> <p>Participatory learning comes from social constructivist philosophy that engages learners in complex real-world content. In participatory learning, students work collaboratively while they negotiate goals, tasks and shared meaning towards the construction of an artefact or product (Barb, Hay, Barnett, & Keating, [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref1">3</reflink>]). It reflects how people learn in real-world natural settings (Lave & Wenger, [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref2">23</reflink>]), where learning is distributed among individuals and situational artefacts (Hutchins, [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref3">18</reflink>]; Hutchins & Klausen, [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref4">19</reflink>]). By engaging in community-based activities, learners take an exploratory role in developing the learning environment while making sense of new knowledge (Cole, [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref5">9</reflink>]; Wenger, [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref6">36</reflink>]; Wertsch, [<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref7">37</reflink>]).</p> <p>There is a wide acceptance among scholars of online learning environments of post-secondary adults that participants are more likely to experience meaningful learning when they are engaged in activities that help them gain a sense of social presence, teaching presence and cognitive presence (Garrison & Cleveland-Innes, [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref8">13</reflink>]). Participatory online learning environments can help adult learners develop a sense of presence while they engage in collaborative knowledge building activities with others and the instructor (Conrad & Donaldson, [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref9">10</reflink>]; Lehman & Conceição, [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref10">24</reflink>]; Palloff & Pratt, [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref11">30</reflink>]). When online courses are designed so that there is a balance between structured instructor-led activities and instructor-facilitated participant-driven activities, learners can quickly observe the instructor's social presence (Yamagata-Lynch, [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref12">40</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0110068735-3">Self-directed online learning</hd> <p>Self-directed learning has been a well-established topic among adult learning scholars (Cercone, [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref13">5</reflink>]; Garrison, [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref14">11</reflink>]). It emphasises how learners can feel empowered to take their own responsibility for deciding what and how to explore a topic of their choosing (Knowles, [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref15">22</reflink>]). In a self-directed learning environment, the instructor typically takes the role of a facilitator (Brockett & Hiemstra, [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref16">4</reflink>]; Robertson, [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref17">32</reflink>]), and as a facilitator, the instructor becomes a contributing member of collaborative learning (Garrison, [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref18">11</reflink>]). In this process, the facilitator needs to help participants to (a) engage in problem-solving, (b) initiate independent learning activities and (c) manage their own learning (Chou & Chen, [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref19">8</reflink>]; Knowles, [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref20">22</reflink>]; Merriam & Caffarella, [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref21">27</reflink>]).</p> <p>With the rapid growth in adult online formal and informal learning opportunities, there has been a growing discussion related to online self-directed learning. The flexibilities that online environments afford learners in terms of time, space and pacing makes it more likely that online learners are able to take charge of their experiences (Garrison, [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref22">12</reflink>]). When online learners are empowered to be in charge of their own learning, they are more likely to overcome the effects from transactional distance, which is the feeling of being isolated as a result of the physical and social distance from the instructor and other participants (Kim, Olfman, Ryan, & Eryilmaz, [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref23">21</reflink>]; Moore, [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref24">28</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref25">29</reflink>]; Song & Hill, [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref26">33</reflink>]). Therefore, self-directed learning can take a vital role in the success of online learning (Garrison, [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref27">12</reflink>]; Hanna, Glowacki-Dudka, & Conceicao-Runlee, [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref28">14</reflink>]; Wang, Peng, Huang, Hou, & Wang, [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref29">34</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0110068735-4">Collaborative course design</hd> <p>Collaborative online course design is considered to be an effective method to develop online courses (Chao, Saj, & Hamilton, [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref30">6</reflink>]; Hawkes & Coldeway, [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref31">15</reflink>]). A collaborative team approach takes advantage of the diverse experiences of each team member while addressing the complexities involved in online learning environments (Luck, [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref32">25</reflink>]; Xu & Morris, [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref33">38</reflink>]). In fact, when instructors of online courses effectively share course development workload and decision-making while working in collaborative teams, course design is often enhanced (Ziegenfuss & Lawler, [<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref34">41</reflink>]).</p> <p>In terms of design team membership, several studies included students as team members (see Johnson, [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref35">20</reflink>]; Ziegenfuss & Lawler, [<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref36">41</reflink>]). When collaborating with students, the instructor needs to consider his/her power relations with students (Weimer, [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref37">35</reflink>]). When students participate in course design, their level of engagement and motivation can increase by sharing the responsibility for creating an effective learning environment with the instructor (Hess, [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref38">16</reflink>]; Johnson, [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref39">20</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0110068735-5">Blending synchronous and asynchronous online learning</hd> <p>When approaching a framework for blending synchronous and asynchronous learning, we decided to leverage what we know about both communication platforms. For synchronous activities, we chose to take advantage of how synchronous online learning can provide participants with (a) a stable means of communication, (b) a communication mode to stay on task, (c) a larger sense of participation and (d) experiences for better task/course completion (Chen & You, [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref40">7</reflink>]; Hrastinski, [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref41">17</reflink>]; Mabrito, [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref42">26</reflink>]). In terms of asynchronous activities, we chose to leverage how it can help participants become active (Conrad & Donaldson, [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref43">10</reflink>]; Lehman & Conceição, [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref44">24</reflink>]) while they engage in complex ill-defined problem-solving (Palloff & Pratt, [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref45">31</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0110068735-6">Goals and methods for sharing this case</hd> <p>Our goal for sharing this case was to explore how self-directed and participatory learning can help post-secondary adult learners stay engaged in online learning activities. We believe that post-secondary online adult learners are likely to be successful when they are active and have the opportunity to shape their learning environments. In presenting this case, we relied on instructor and student collaborative activities related to the participatory online activities showcase and analysis (POAS) assignment. The instructor designed the POAS to ensure that students engaged in participatory self-directed learning as part of the course expectations. Our case and lessons learned are based on two POAS examples, when the course was offered in spring 2014 with an enrolment of 17 students and all students completed the course with satisfactory performance. We reviewed peer participation data, student designer reflection papers, and instructor and designer observations. The connections we draw related to our case and the literature are aimed to explain our design principles and the lessons learned rather than making generalisable claims.</p> <hd id="AN0110068735-7">Typical participant experiences in the course</hd> <p>This case is situated in a course about online learning environments offered annually at UT and typically enrols between 10 and 20 students. The course is a requirement in the Instructional Technology Master's Programme and is also offered as an elective for students in other programmes. The course is facilitated through asynchronous discussions that typically last five days and is followed with weekly synchronous online 3-h meetings. Both the asynchronous and synchronous sessions are supported through tools adopted by the university that include Blackboard and Blackboard Collaborate. The structure of these weekly activities is shown in Figure 1.</p> <p>Graph: Figure 1. Typical weekly asynchronous and synchronous activities.</p> <p>Each week's course activities started with participants reading assigned materials and then engaging in asynchronous discussions about the readings and other related topics. Every week, participants were assigned to a peer group of three to four members where they were responsible for responding to peers' posts throughout the 5-day discussion period. During the synchronous sessions, the first 10 min were reserved for instructor announcements and logistical check-ins. The check-ins were followed by instructor-led discussions relating to readings and asynchronous discussions activities for 15–20 min followed by a 10-min break. Following the break, students engaged in small breakout group activities for about 30–45 min. At the completion of the time allotted for the breakout, the whole class engaged in discussion for about 20 min. After large group discussions, the instructor opened the floor for general questions or comments. At the end of this discussion was a 10-min break for students who remained in the synchronous session for the purpose of meeting with POAS peers or the instructor. Students not meeting were dismissed from the synchronous session and could spend time preparing for the next week's asynchronous activities.</p> <p>The instructor designed the first three weeks with structured activities to model online course facilitation. These activities were designed to help participants become familiar with the technical aspects in Blackboard and Blackboard Collaborate as well as establish an agreed upon set of course participation ground rules. The instructor wanted to address these efforts early in the semester to help participants become comfortable with the online learning space as a stable place to communicate with peers and the instructor while completing course related tasks and gaining a sense of participation (Chen & You, [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref46">7</reflink>]; Mabrito, [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref47">26</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0110068735-8">Participatory online activities showcase and analysis</hd> <p>In the POAS assignment, students worked in pairs in collaboration with the instructor to explore innovative methods for engaging themselves as facilitators and other participants in asynchronous and synchronous learning activities. Each team met with the instructor during a synchronous session three weeks prior to their POAS assigned week to discuss the topic and readings. After the first three weeks of instructor-facilitated activities, student teams took responsibility for designing course activities in collaboration with the instructor and implemented the asynchronous and synchronous activities for the remaining course meetings. After student teams implemented their activities, each team member was responsible for completing a reflection paper with a theoretical analysis of what went well and what did not go well.</p> <p>The POAS assignment was designed to simulate authentic situations that were safe for participants to succeed and/or fail as a result of their self-directed efforts. The instructor designed this activity with an understanding that it was likely that many participants would become future instructors/designers of online courses. Therefore, the instructor wanted the participants to engage in real-world problem-solving through shared course design activities (Barab, Hay, Barnett, & Keating, [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref48">3</reflink>]; Lave & Wenger, [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref49">23</reflink>]) rather than read and learn about what they will be expected to know as professionals. The instructor wanted students to take an active role and experience the distributed nature of community-based collaborative efforts (Cole, [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref50">9</reflink>]; Hutchins, [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref51">18</reflink>]; Wertsch, [<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref52">37</reflink>]) prior to being expected to implement these pedagogical techniques in the future.</p> <p>For the POAS presentations, the instructor took the role of a facilitator in order to provide opportunities for students to gain a sense of empowerment (Brockett & Hiemstra, [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref53">4</reflink>]; Knowles, [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref54">22</reflink>]; Robertson, [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref55">32</reflink>]). Based on past experiences, the instructor believed that individuals who are in professions that require integrating new technologies into learning environments need this sense of empowerment through trial and error (Yamagata-Lynch, [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref56">39</reflink>]). The instructor also knew from experience that when participants are learning to integrate new technologies into teaching and learning situations, they often benefit the most through collaborative design activities (Luck, [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref57">25</reflink>]; Xu & Morris, [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref58">38</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0110068735-9">POAS examples</hd> <p>To present two examples of the POAS, we framed the preparation of this case by asking ourselves: What lessons can a team of graduate students and the instructor learn about self-directed participatory online learning from a collaborative design project? The two POAS examples are from Week 4 and Week 9 of course activities. Table 1 provides a summary of each activity including information on the topic, objectives, activity overview and participation data.</p> <p>Table 1. POAS examples.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead><tr valign="top"><td /><td>POAS example 1: Week 4</td><td>POAS example 2: Week 9</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr valign="top"><td>Topic</td><td>Understanding successful online educators and support services</td><td>Exploring diversity and equity in online learning</td></tr><tr valign="top"><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr valign="top"><td>Objective</td><td>Participants will work in peer groups of three to four members to (a) explore and apply understandings related to successful online educators and support services; (b) explore and apply recommendations related to virtual teaming; (c) explore and apply 'introduce controversy' as a tool to enhance asynchronous discussion</td><td>Participants will (a) work independently to explore diversity and equity issues in online learning environments; (b) work in peer groups of three to four members to discuss personal experiences from the past where they felt they were treated differently based on their gender within a learning environment; and (c) work in peer groups of three to four members to discuss how instructors of online courses can address equity and diversity issues in their courses</td></tr><tr valign="top"><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr valign="top"><td>Activity outcomes</td><td>5-Day asynchronous discussion generated 153 posts, in which 18 participants of the course including the instructor participated. All 18 participants including the instructor attended synchronous meeting from the start of the class to the end</td><td>5-Day asynchronous discussion generated 176 posts, in which 18 participants of the course including the instructor participated. Sixteen participants including the instructor attended synchronous meeting from the start of the class to the end</td></tr><tr valign="top"><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr valign="top"><td>Descriptive statistics for asynchronous participation trends</td><td>All course participants contributed</td><td>All course participants contributed</td></tr><tr valign="top"><td /><td>Mean: 8.5 posts</td><td>Mean: 9.78 posts</td></tr><tr valign="top"><td /><td>Standard deviation: 5.15</td><td>Standard deviation: 3.90</td></tr><tr valign="top"><td /><td>Facilitator posts: 42 (27%)</td><td>Facilitator posts: 15 (9%)</td></tr><tr valign="top"><td /><td>Instructor posts: 7 (5%)</td><td>Instructor posts: 17 (10%)</td></tr><tr valign="top"><td /><td>Posts were on task</td><td>Posts were on task</td></tr><tr valign="top"><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr valign="top"><td>Synchronous activities summary</td><td>10 min – Logistical check-in</td><td>4 min – Logistical check-in</td></tr><tr valign="top"><td /><td>15 min – Facilitator summary of asynchronous discussions</td><td>15 min – Facilitator summary of asynchronous discussions</td></tr><tr valign="top"><td /><td>30 min – Small group activities</td><td>30 min – Small group activities</td></tr><tr valign="top"><td /><td>20 min – Whole class discussion</td><td>20 min – Whole class discussion</td></tr><tr valign="top"><td /><td>10 min – Break</td><td>10 min – Break</td></tr><tr valign="top"><td /><td>55 min – Instructor advising/group work</td><td>55 min – Instructor advising/group work</td></tr><tr valign="top"><td /><td>All course participants were present and participated in all activities</td><td>2 course participants were absent due to work related reasons, all others participated in all activities</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>The topic for Week 4 examined successful online educator practices and institutional support services to assist students and faculty in transition from face-to-face to online learning. The lesson objectives for the week were as follows: participants will work in peer groups of three to four members to (a) explore and apply understandings related to successful online educators and support services; (b) explore and apply recommendations related to virtual teaming; (c) explore and apply 'introduce controversy' as a tool to enhance asynchronous discussion.</p> <p>The topic for Week 9 explored diversity and equity issues in online learning. The lesson objectives were as follows: participants will (a) work independently to explore diversity and equity issues in online learning environments; (b) work in peer groups of three to four members to discuss personal experiences from the past where they felt they were treated differently based on their gender within a learning environment; and (c) work in peer groups of three to four members to discuss how instructors of online courses can address equity and diversity issues in their courses.</p> <p>Both POAS course activities began with asynchronous discussion. During Week 4, participants engaged in two discussion activities in a designated team space in Blackboard. The Week 4 team incorporated team space because the readings from past weeks suggested that virtual teams tend to be more functional when they are provided with clearly designated meeting spaces (see Anderson, McEwan, Bal, & Carletta, [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref59">1</reflink>]; Asterhan & Schwarz, [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref60">2</reflink>]) The first discussion topic was about examining exemplary teaching in both face-to-face and online settings. The second topic was about how to support instructional units to transition effective face-to-face instruction to online learning. Each peer team worked together to gain a consensus/decision regarding their topic and was responsible to report their team's summary discussion. POAS Week 4 Team Member 1 shared in her reflection paper that they purposefully structured discussions as 'controversial questions to prompt discussions with more interactions and a deeper engagement with the content' (February, 2014) following the advice they found in Palloff and Pratt ([<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref61">30</reflink>]) and Asterhan and Schwarz ([<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref62">2</reflink>]).</p> <p>In Week 9 asynchronous activities, peer groups engaged in discussion about diversity and equity issues in face-to-face and online learning environments. Each group started their activity by watching an online video titled 'Boom Roasted: Here's Why You Don't Ask A Feminist To Hawk Your Sexist Product,' which was available at: <ulink href="http://www.upworthy.com/boom-roasted-heres-why-you-dont-ask-a-feminist-to-hawk-your-sexist-product">http://www.upworthy.com/boom-roasted-heres-why-you-dont-ask-a-feminist-to-hawk-your-sexist-product</ulink>. Week 9 facilitators prepared three discussion threads in Blackboard, each with a different topic. The first topic was about personal experiences in face-to-face classroom settings where participants experienced being treated differently based on gender. The second topic was about any differences they observed related to how they were treated in online learning environments based on their gender. The third discussion was about whether participants observed any difference in their experiences between face-to-face and online learning environments based on gender.</p> <p>The synchronous sessions for both weeks followed what was typical in class with logistical check-in by the instructor followed by the POAS facilitators summarising the asynchronous discussions and explaining the synchronous whole group and breakout activities. In Week 4, peer teams were provided with the same set of breakout activities, but were assigned to address them from different perspectives. In Week 9, participants were given the opportunity to choose which topics they would like to discuss during breakout sessions. The Week 9 POAS team fully embraced what they learned from Palloff and Pratt ([<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref63">30</reflink>]) regarding the need for community building in online courses and its importance in participant success. The team wanted to enhance community building by providing participants the opportunity to choose their membership based on shared interests rather than a randomised assignment. These teams were tasked to review a set of resources and to either (a) create a welcome statement or inclusion policy for an online course or (b) generate ideas related to how instructors design online activities to ensure equity. Each team had 30 min in the breakout activity and 5 min in the large group to report what they discussed. In both examples, after whole class discussion, the instructor led final discussions about the topic.</p> <p>The outcomes from the two examples included a high participation rate for the asynchronous activities. Week 4 generated a total 153 discussion with 100% participation. All posts were considered as being on task as they addressed discussion prompts and/or peer comments. The mean post frequency was 8.5 with a standard deviation of 5.15. Week 4 facilitators made a total of 42 posts, which was 27% of all posts for the week, and the instructor made a total of 7 posts, which was 5% of the total posts. For the Week 4 synchronous meeting, all 19 participants including the instructor attended the session.</p> <p>Week 9 online asynchronous discussion generated a total of 173 posts with 100% participation. Once again, all posts were considered as being on task with the discussion topics. The mean post frequency was 9.78 with a standard deviation of 3.90. Week 9 facilitators made a total of 15 posts, which was 9% of all posts, and the instructor made a total of 17 posts, which was 10% of the total posts. For the Week 9 synchronous meeting, 17 participants including the instructor attended and participated in the POAS activities. Two students who participated in the asynchronous activities for the week were not able to attend the synchronous meeting due to conflicts with their work schedule.</p> <hd id="AN0110068735-10">Participatory online self-directed course design lessons</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0110068735-11">Lessons learned shared by POAS teams</hd> <p>Members from the Week 4 POAS team shared how they gained a greater sense of appreciation regarding the challenges of designing effective online learning activities and the complications inherent in this modality. One member shared in her reflection paper that she appreciated the real-world experience from the POAS as it helped her take an active role in her learning and make sense of both theoretical and practical implications. Both team members from Week 4 reported that working with a collaborator helped them stay on task, while exploring and designing new online activities. One team member commented that by working with a partner designing online activities: 'we were able to gain experience testing new methods for engaging online learners while understanding how beliefs related to online learning affect the types of activities we planned' (POAS Week 4 Team Member 1 Reflection, February 2014).</p> <p>After the implementation, the Week 4 POAS team observed that their strategy of providing a team space within the asynchronous discussion increased student participation compared to prior weeks. The team reported that they were excited to have the opportunity to implement activities based on successful design principles and strategies identified in the literature. However, Team Member 2 shared in her reflection that they implemented too many design principles and strategies at once and on hindsight they were not able to assess what specifically worked well because of this ambitious goal. This team member suggested that in the future she would rely on less principles and strategies at first so that she will be able to determine what specific aspects of activities work well. In terms of the synchronous activity, both Week 4 team members reported they had put too many tasks in the allotted time, and in the future, they will need to adjust their activity based on how much can be accomplished.</p> <p>Week 9 POAS team shared similar sentiments with the Week 4 team about designing online learning environments and how it was a complex task. Week 9 Team Member 1 shared how designing online learning environments can be complicated by past personal negative experiences of being in poorly designed online courses that gave him an impression that face-to-face courses would always be better. However, his beliefs about online learning changed as course activities progressed. After implementing Week 9 activities, the team found that student participation in asynchronous discussions was high when participants were asked to reflect on their own experiences and share a relevant past experience connected to course content. Team Member 2 reported that he was surprised 'at the level to which class members were able to reflect on their own experiences ... to synthesise the readings and integrate these in reflection with their own experiences' (March 2014). This team member observed that when online course participants were given the opportunity to take an active role in collaborative knowledge building, it is more likely for the participation level to be higher. In terms of the synchronous session, Week 9 Team Member 2 reported that while he wanted to maximise student choice, there were too many complications and it was challenging to keep track of which student volunteered for which topic. The next time he implements this type of spontaneous self-selection activity, he wants to use a better method for students to share and select their participation preferences.</p> <hd id="AN0110068735-12">Lessons learned shared by the instructor</hd> <p>The instructor learned that student self-directed online learning does not have to be an isolated individual activity as it is so often referred to in support of the anytime, anywhere nature of asynchronous activities. Instead, it can involve students working with the instructor as facilitators in a learning community (Brockett & Hiemstra, [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref64">4</reflink>]; Garrison, [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref65">11</reflink>]; Robertson, [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref66">32</reflink>]). Therefore, engaging students in self-directed online participatory learning activities could provide them with authentic experiences.</p> <p>At first, it was uncomfortable for the instructor sharing the course design responsibilities with students because she knew that in online courses, students need structure to succeed (Yamagata-Lynch, [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref67">40</reflink>]). To take an optimal role as a facilitator, the instructor had to find new ways to provide structure by setting clear expectations regarding the scope, timeframe and shared design responsibilities. Another lesson that the instructor learned was that when there are many designers involved in course activities, the instructor herself and course participants are exposed to a diverse set of teaching and learning experiences. The POAS activities represented experiences that the instructor alone would never have envisioned. Ordinarily, the instructor would have been hesitant to introduce such diverse experiences because she believed that online students need consistent course experiences; however, with the entire class being open to the collaborative design process within the agreed upon structural framework, all involved were open to a diverse experience. Finally, the instructor learned that the POAS assignment helped students as online course designers to engage in activities that pushed them to find connections between theory and practice. The POAS student reflection papers showed student concerns about both theoretical and practical implications of how their activities helped participants engage with course concepts and how their experiences would influence their future design activities.</p> <p>One struggle the instructor found in the collaborative course design process was determining how to be a good facilitator for each team with clear power expectations (Weimer, [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref68">35</reflink>]). Depending on student team needs, there were varying degrees of participation that was required of the instructor. For example, Week 4 team was very comfortable with their POAS activities, they designed the topics assigned to them and took charge of both the asynchronous and synchronous discussions and the instructor made a decision that it would be best to stay out of their way. Week 9 team members were both male individuals and were unsure of online gender inequity as the assigned topic because they lacked experience being in inequitable situations. As seen in the number of asynchronous posts made by the instructor during Week 9, she took a more prominent role than Week 4. For the future, the instructor believes that it will be helpful for student teams if she prepares a summary of varying degrees of participation she can take supporting them as a facilitator so that student teams can consider the instructor's role while designing course activities.</p> <hd id="AN0110068735-13">Notes on contributors</hd> <p>Lisa C. Yamagata-Lynch is an Associate Professor in the Educational Psychology and Counseling Department at the University of Tennessee. She is the Program Coordinator of the Instructional Technology Online Master's Program. Her scholarly and teaching interests are in the areas of instructional design and technology, preservice teacher education, online learning, and Cultural Historical Activity Theory. She is the author of the book Activity Systems Analysis Methods: Understanding Complex Learning Environments, which was published in 2010.</p> <p>Jaewoo Do is a doctoral student in the Educational Psychology and Counseling Department at the University of Tennessee. He has designed online courses for companies, universities, and Korean government institutions as an instructional designer. His research interests are online course design, learning support tool design, online learning environment and self-regulated learning.</p> <p>Anne L. Skutnik is a doctoral student in Learning Environments and Educational Studies at the University of Tennessee. She has experience as a K-12 educator and currently teaches applied educational psychology to preserve teachers. Her research interests include the design and use of formative and summative assessments in online learning environments, and the teaching of online STEM courses as a complex activity.</p> <p>Duren J. Thompson is a Program Coordinator for Professional Development at the University of Tennessee Center for Literacy, Education and Employment as well as a graduate student in the Instructional Technology Masters program at the University. Her areas of scholarship focus on evidence-based professional development for educators and effective integration of technologies in classroom, online and blended learning.</p> <p>Adam F. Stephens is a doctoral candidate in Counselor Education & Supervision at The University of Tennessee. His clinical experiences include serving as a family therapist in a chemical dependency treatment center as well as working with children and their foster or adoptive parents. His research interests include wellness curriculum in counselor education programs, Adlerian approaches in same-sex couples counseling, and using transformative learning theory in online counselor education instruction.</p> <p>Cheryl A. Tays is the Information Technology Instructor and Web Master for Alvin C. York Institute. Her program includes Computer Applications, Interactive Multimedia Presentations, Web Page Design I and II. She is also a graduate student in the Instructional Technology Masters program at the University of Tennessee. Her scholarly focus is the implementation of technology in the secondary education classroom and technology training for secondary education faculty.</p> <hd id="AN0110068735-14">Disclosure statement</hd> <p>No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.</p> <ref id="AN0110068735-15"> <title> References </title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref59" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext> Anderson, A. H., McEwan, R., Bal, J., & Carletta, J. (2007). Virtual team meetings: An analysis of communication and context. Computers in Human Behavior, 23, 2558–2580. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2007.01.001</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref60" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext> Asterhan, C. S. C., & Schwarz, B. B. (2010). Online moderation of synchronous e-argumentation. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 5, 259–282. doi:10.1007/s11412-010-9088-2</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" idref="ref1" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext> Barab, S. A., Hay, K. E., Barnett, M., & Keating, T. (2000). Virtual solar system project: Building understanding through model building. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37, 719–756. doi:10.1002/1098-2736</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" idref="ref16" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext> Brockett, R. G., & Hiemstra, R. (1985). Bridging the theory–practice gap in self-directed learning. New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education, 1985, 31–40. doi:10.1002/ace.36719852505</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" idref="ref13" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext> Cercone, K. (2008). Characteristics of adult learners with implications for online learning design. AACE Journal, 16, 137–159.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" idref="ref30" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext> Chao, I. T., Saj, T., & Hamilton, D. (2010). Using collaborative course development to achieve online course quality standards. The International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 11, 106–126.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" idref="ref40" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext> Chen, W., & You, M. (2007). The differences between the influences of synchronous and asynchronous modes on collaborative learning project of industrial design. In D. Schuler (Ed.), Lecture notes in computer science: Vol. 4564. Online communities and social computing (pp. 275–283). Berlin: Springer-Verlag. doi:10.1007/978-3-540-73257-0_31</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" idref="ref19" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext> Chou, P.-N., & Chen, W.-F. (2008). Exploratory study of the relationship between self-directed learning and academic performance in a web-based learning environment. Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration, 11. Retrieved from <ulink href="http://www.westga.edu/~distance/ojdla/spring111/chou111.html">http://www.westga.edu/~distance/ojdla/spring111/chou111.html</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" idref="ref5" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext> Cole, M. (1996). Cultural psychology: A once and future discipline. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Conrad, R.-M., & Donaldson, J. A. (2011). Engaging the online learner: Activities and resources for creative instruction (2nd ed.) San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Garrison, D. R. (1997). Self-directed learning: Toward a comprehensive model. Adult Education Quarterly, 48, 18–33. doi:10.1177/074171369704800103</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Garrison, D. R. (2003). Self-directed learning and distance education. In M. G. Moore & W. G. Anderson (Eds.), Handbook of distance education (2nd ed., pp. 161–168). New Jersey, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Garrison, D. R., & Cleveland-Innes, M. (2005). Facilitating cognitive presence in online learning: Interaction is not enough. American Journal of Distance Education, 19, 133–148. doi:10.1207/s15389286ajde1903_2</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hanna, D. E., Glowacki-Dudka, M., & Conceicao-Runlee, S. (2000). 147 Practical tips for teaching online groups. Madison, WI: Atwood.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hawkes, M., & Coldeway, D. O. (2002). An analysis of team vs. faculty-based online course development: Implications for instructional design. Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 3, 431–441.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hess, G. (2008). Collaborative course design: Not my course, not their course, but our course. Washburn Law Journal, 47, 367–387.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hrastinski, S. (2010). How do e-learners participate in synchronous online discussions? Evolutionary and social psychological perspectives. In N. Kock (Ed.), Evolutionary psychology and information systems research (pp. 119–147). New York, NY: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-1-4419-6139-6_6</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hutchins, E. (1993). Learning to navigate. In S. Chaiklin & J. Lave (Eds.), Understanding practice: Perspectives on activity and context (pp. 35–63). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511625510</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hutchins, E., & Klausen, T. (1996). Distributed cognition in an airline cockpit. In Y. Engeström & D. Middleton (Eds.), Cognition and communication at work (pp. 15–34). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9781139174077</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Johnson, P. E. (2000). Getting students to read the syllabus: Another approach. Teaching Professor, 14(3), 1–2.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kim, R., Olfman, L., Ryan, T., & Eryilmaz, E. (2014). Leveraging a personalized system to improve self-directed learning in online educational environments. Computers & Education, 70, 150–160. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2013.08.006</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Knowles, M. S. (1975). Self-directed learning: A guide for learners and teachers. Chicago, IL: Association Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511815355</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lehman, R. M., & Conceição, S. C. (2010). Creating a sense of presence in online teaching: How to "Be There" for distance learners. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Luck, A. (2001). The technology source archives – Developing courses for online delivery: One strategy. Retrieved from <ulink href="http://technologysource.org/article/developing%5fcourses%5ffor%5fonline%5fdelivery/">http://technologysource.org/article/developing%5fcourses%5ffor%5fonline%5fdelivery/</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Mabrito, M. (2006). A study of synchronous versus asynchronous collaboration in an online business writing class. American Journal of Distance Education, 20, 93–107. doi:10.1207/s15389286ajde2002_4</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Merriam, S. B., Caffarella, R. S., & Baumgartner, L. M. (2007). Learning in adulthood: A comprehensive guide (3rd ed.) San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Moore, M. G. (1993). Theory of transactional distance. In D. Keagan (Ed.), Theoretical principles of distance education (pp. 22–29). New York, NY: Routledge.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Moore, M. G. (2013). The theory of transactional distance. In M. G. Moore (Ed.), Handbook of distance education (pp. 66–85). New York, NY: Routledge.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Palloff, R. M., & Pratt, K. (2007). Building online learning communities: Effective strategies for the virtual classroom (2nd ed.) San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Palloff, R. M., & Pratt, K. (2011). The excellent online instructor: Strategies for professional development. San Franciscio, CA: John Wiley & Sons.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Robertson, J. (2011). The educational affordances of blogs for self-directed learning. Computers & Education, 57, 1628–1644. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2011.03.003</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Song, L., & Hill, J. R. (2007). A conceptual model for understanding self-directed learning in online environments. Journal of Interactive Online Learning, 6, 27–42.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wang, Y., Peng, H., Huang, R., Hou, Y., & Wang, J. (2008). Characteristics of distance learners: Research on relationships of learning motivation, learning strategy, self-efficacy, attribution and learning results. Open Learning, 23, 17–28. doi:10.1080/02680510701815277</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Weimer, M. (2013). Learner-centered teaching: Five key changes to practice (2nd ed.) San Francisco, CA: John Wiley & Sons.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511803932</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wertsch, J. V. (1991). Voices of the mind. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Xu, H., & Morris, L. V. (2007). Collaborative course development for online courses. Innovative Higher Education, 32, 35–47. doi:10.1007/s10755-006-9033-5</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Yamagata-Lynch, L. C. (2003). How a technology professional development program fit into the work lives of teachers. Teaching and Teacher Education, 19, 591–607. doi:10.1016/S0742-051X(03)00056-8</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Yamagata-Lynch, L. C. (2014). Blending online asynchronous and synchronous learning. The International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 15, 188–212.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ziegenfuss, D. H., & Lawler, P. A. (2008). Collaborative course design: Changing the process, acknowledging the context, and implications for academic development. International Journal for Academic Development, 13, 151–160. doi:10.1080/13601440802242309</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By Lisa C. Yamagata-Lynch; Jaewoo Do; Anne L. Skutnik; Duren J. Thompson; Adam F. Stephens and Cheryl A. Tays</p> <p>Reported by Author; Author; Author; Author; Author; Author</p> </aug> <nolink nlid="nl1" bibid="bib23" firstref="ref2"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl2" bibid="bib18" firstref="ref3"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl3" bibid="bib19" firstref="ref4"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl4" bibid="bib36" firstref="ref6"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl5" bibid="bib37" firstref="ref7"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl6" bibid="bib13" firstref="ref8"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl7" bibid="bib10" firstref="ref9"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl8" bibid="bib24" firstref="ref10"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl9" bibid="bib30" firstref="ref11"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl10" bibid="bib40" firstref="ref12"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl11" bibid="bib11" firstref="ref14"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl12" bibid="bib22" firstref="ref15"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl13" bibid="bib32" firstref="ref17"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl14" bibid="bib27" firstref="ref21"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl15" bibid="bib12" firstref="ref22"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl16" bibid="bib21" firstref="ref23"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl17" bibid="bib28" firstref="ref24"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl18" bibid="bib29" firstref="ref25"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl19" bibid="bib33" firstref="ref26"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl20" bibid="bib14" firstref="ref28"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl21" bibid="bib34" firstref="ref29"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl22" bibid="bib15" firstref="ref31"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl23" bibid="bib25" firstref="ref32"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl24" bibid="bib38" firstref="ref33"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl25" bibid="bib41" firstref="ref34"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl26" bibid="bib20" firstref="ref35"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl27" bibid="bib35" firstref="ref37"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl28" bibid="bib16" firstref="ref38"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl29" bibid="bib17" firstref="ref41"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl30" bibid="bib26" firstref="ref42"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl31" bibid="bib31" firstref="ref45"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl32" bibid="bib39" firstref="ref56"></nolink>
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: EJ1076231
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: Design Lessons about Participatory Self-Directed Online Learning in a Graduate-Level Instructional Technology Course
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Yamagata-Lynch%2C+Lisa+C%2E%22">Yamagata-Lynch, Lisa C.</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Do%2C+Jaewoo%22">Do, Jaewoo</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Skutnik%2C+Anne+L%2E%22">Skutnik, Anne L.</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Thompson%2C+Duren+J%2E%22">Thompson, Duren J.</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Stephens%2C+Adam+F%2E%22">Stephens, Adam F.</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Tays%2C+Cheryl+A%2E%22">Tays, Cheryl A.</searchLink>
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22Open+Learning%22"><i>Open Learning</i></searchLink>. 2015 30(2):178-189.
– Name: Avail
  Label: Availability
  Group: Avail
  Data: Routledge. Available from: Taylor & Francis, Ltd. 325 Chestnut Street Suite 800, Philadelphia, PA 19106. Tel: 800-354-1420; Fax: 215-625-2940; Web site: http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals
– Name: PeerReviewed
  Label: Peer Reviewed
  Group: SrcInfo
  Data: Y
– Name: Pages
  Label: Page Count
  Group: Src
  Data: 12
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2015
– Name: TypeDocument
  Label: Document Type
  Group: TypDoc
  Data: Journal Articles<br />Reports - Research
– Name: Audience
  Label: Education Level
  Group: Audnce
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Higher+Education%22">Higher Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Postsecondary+Education%22">Postsecondary Education</searchLink>
– Name: Subject
  Label: Descriptors
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Graduate+Students%22">Graduate Students</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Graduate+Study%22">Graduate Study</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Self+Directed+Groups%22">Self Directed Groups</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Online+Courses%22">Online Courses</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Educational+Environment%22">Educational Environment</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Asynchronous+Communication%22">Asynchronous Communication</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Synchronous+Communication%22">Synchronous Communication</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Curriculum+Design%22">Curriculum Design</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Assignments%22">Assignments</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Cooperative+Learning%22">Cooperative Learning</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Cooperative+Planning%22">Cooperative Planning</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Formative+Evaluation%22">Formative Evaluation</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Active+Learning%22">Active Learning</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Blended+Learning%22">Blended Learning</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Learning+Activities%22">Learning Activities</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Educational+Technology%22">Educational Technology</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Feedback+%28Response%29%22">Feedback (Response)</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Educational+Practices%22">Educational Practices</searchLink>
– Name: Subject
  Label: Geographic Terms
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Tennessee%22">Tennessee</searchLink>
– Name: DOI
  Label: DOI
  Group: ID
  Data: 10.1080/02680513.2015.1071244
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 0268-0513
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: This article reports on a case of participatory self-directed online learning within the context of a graduate-level instructional technology course. The course was about online learning environments and relied on both asynchronous and synchronous technologies. In this case, the instructor and students engaged in collaborative course design through one of the assignments where student teams and the instructor led one week's worth of course activities and discussions. This article begins with a discussion of the literature on participatory self-directed online learning. Then, the article presents an overview of the course design, detailed discussion of the assignment that framed student participatory self-directed learning and two examples of student assignments. The framing question for organising this case was as follows: What lessons can a team of graduate students and the instructor learn about self-directed participatory online learning from a collaborative design project? The article ends with the overall lessons learned from the case and implications to future design of online activities.
– Name: AbstractInfo
  Label: Abstractor
  Group: Ab
  Data: As Provided
– Name: Ref
  Label: Number of References
  Group: RefInfo
  Data: 41
– Name: DateEntry
  Label: Entry Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2015
– Name: AN
  Label: Accession Number
  Group: ID
  Data: EJ1076231
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1076231
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1080/02680513.2015.1071244
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 12
        StartPage: 178
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Graduate Students
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Graduate Study
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Self Directed Groups
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Online Courses
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Educational Environment
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Asynchronous Communication
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Synchronous Communication
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Curriculum Design
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Assignments
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Cooperative Learning
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Cooperative Planning
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Formative Evaluation
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Active Learning
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Blended Learning
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Learning Activities
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Educational Technology
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Feedback (Response)
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Educational Practices
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Tennessee
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: Design Lessons about Participatory Self-Directed Online Learning in a Graduate-Level Instructional Technology Course
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Yamagata-Lynch, Lisa C.
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Do, Jaewoo
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Skutnik, Anne L.
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Thompson, Duren J.
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Stephens, Adam F.
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Tays, Cheryl A.
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 01
              Type: published
              Y: 2015
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 0268-0513
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 30
            – Type: issue
              Value: 2
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: Open Learning
              Type: main
ResultId 1