Blending Community-Driven Learning Activities
…we become ourselves through others…
Lev Vygotsky, Development of Higher Mental Functions
Learning does not belong to individual persons, but to the various conversations of which they are a part.
R. P. McDermott, On Becoming Labelled – The Story of Adam
About this chapter
Chapter 8, Blending Community-Driven Learning Activities turns our attention to learning activities that are driven by community-centered activities or collaboration between learners in order to enhance flexibility, effectiveness, and engagement — whether online or onsite. This chapter emphasizes learning activities that are backed by research in both modes.
From the guide…
Many chapters of this guide feature a “to do” item to help you focus your own blended course design:
Continue to develop plans for your prototype lesson using the course design map. By the end of this chapter, you should have enough ideas and notes in your course design map to begin building one blended lesson in your online environment.
There are a many free or open platforms for online collaboration and community-building. Here are some by category:
site de rencontre woozgo Wikis:
The general strengths of and weaknesses of onsite and online environments with respect to interaction:
her comment is here Onsite
|Check Out Your URL Strengths||right here Human Connection: It is easier to bond and develop a social presence in a face-to-face environment. It makes it easier to develop trust. http://www.lexiquedumanagement.com/milkivay/2589 Spontaneity: Allows the generation of rapid chains of associated ideas and serendipitous discoveries||bpd dating website Flexibility: Students can contribute to the discussion at the time and place that is most convenient for them. Participation: All students can participate because time and place constraints are removed.Depth of Reflection: Learners have time to more carefully consider and provide evidence for their claims and provide deeper more thoughtful reflections.|
|Weaknesses||Participation: Cannot always have everyone participate, especially if the class is large and/or there are dominating personalities.Flexibility: Limited time, which means that you may not be able to reach the discussion depth that you would like.||Spontaneity: Does not encourage the generation of rapid chains of ideas and serendipitous discoveries.Procrastination: There may be a tendency towards procrastination when students have increased flexibility and autonomy.Human Connection: The medium is considered to be impersonal which may cause a lower satisfaction level with the communication.|
Comparison of traditional learning journals and blogs
|http://www.comitesdepistagecancers.fr/ployka/5220 Journal||https://www.cedarforestloghomes.com/enupikos/2015 Blog|
|Audience||Teacher, learner||Teacher, learner, peers, others|
|Content||Journal entries (personal reflections, summaries)||Journal entries, reviews, showcase works, opinion pieces, etc.|
|Access||Closed (private)||Open (public)|
|Space||Teacher-owned, e.g. LMS||Student-owned, e.g. blog platform|
References & Readings
Diaz, V., & Initiative, E. L. (2010). Privacy considerations in cloud-based teaching and learning environments. ELI Paper 3. Educause. Retrieved from net.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/ELI3024.pdf.
Ebert-May, D., Brewer, C., & Allred, S. (1997). Innovation in large lectures: Teaching for active learning. BioScience, 47(9), 601–607.
Foss, C. (2012). ENGL 375A2: Disability in literature. Retrieved from dislit2012.umwblogs.org.
Garrison, D. R., & Archer. W. (2000). A transactional perspective on teaching-learning transaction: A framework for adult and higher education. Oxford: Pergamon.
Garrison, D. R., & Cleveland-Innes, M. (2005). Cognitive presence in online learning: Interaction is not enough. American Journal of Distance Education, 19(3), 133–148.
Hall, H., & Davison, B. (2007). Social software as support in hybrid learning environments: The value of the blog as a tool for reflective learning and peer support. Library and Information Science Research, 29, 163–187.
Johnson, E. J., & Card, K. (2008). The effects of instructor and student immediacy behaviors in writing improvement and course satisfaction in a web-based undergraduate course. MountainRise, The International Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 4(2), 1–21.
Kessler, P. D., & Lund, C. H. (2004). Reflective journaling: Developing an online journal for distance education. Nurse Educator, 29(1), 20–24.
McDermott, R. P. (1999). On becoming labelled: The story of Adam. In P. Murphy (Ed.), Learners, learning, and assessment (pp. 1–21). London: Paul Chapman Publishing, Ltd.
Sands, P. (2002). Inside outside, upside downside: Strategies for connecting online and face-to-face instruction in hybrid courses. Teaching with Technology Today, 8(6). Retrieved from www.uwsa.edu/ttt/articles/sands2.htm.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1966). Development of higher mental functions. In A. N. Leontyev, A. R. Luria, & A. Smirnov (Eds.), Psychological Research in the USSR. Moscow: Progress Publishers.
Wenger, E. (2007). Communities of practice: A brief introduction. In Communities of practice. Retrieved from www.ewenger.com/theory.