Fac2016 oconnor

A Potpourri of Tested “Innovations” —Enriching Classroom Communities

• Drs. Jelia Domingo & Eileen O’Connor

Virtual Environment Implementation

• Pros• Once in place, students can go

on at will according to their own schedule.

• All desk top computers have sufficient memory to support the platform.

• Cons• It requires students to prepare in

advance and many do not.

• Platform will not work on iPhones, iPads, or tablets

• This technology is unsupported by the college.

New: Virtual Collaboration

• Organized students into groups

• Gave them latitude to meet at their own convenience

• Required them to assign roles – documentation of ideas, recording attendance via screen shots

• Those without roles for sessions were to respond to other groups’ postings.

Benefits of Virtual Collaboration

• Students process information more differently than in the exclusive asynchronous environment. (Social learning theory in action.)

• Encourages accountability between students instead of just to instructor

• Higher level of engagement

• Development of stronger interpersonal relationships.

Ongoing virtual work

• Since 2007, Eileen has been bringing students into virtual environments for: • Meetings and discussions• Presentations for speakers

(dean; teachers-in-classrooms; special speakers – assistive technologies)

• Joint collaboration and project development

Since 2013, she has taught courses on virtual development • The follow slides simply

illustrate ways that virtual environments can be customized to create instructor level expressions of the environment they want to create

Selected publications on virtual environments

• O’Connor, E. A. & Domingo, J. A Practical Guide, with Theoretical Underpinnings, for Creating Effective Virtual Reality Learning Environments. in print by the Journal of Educational Technology Systems.

• O’Connor, E.A. (2015-2016). Open Source Meets Virtual Reality – An Instructor’s Journey Unearths New Opportunities for Learning, Community and Academia. Journal of Educational Technology Systems. 44(2), 153-170. (link thru ESC library databases)

• O’Connor, E. A. (2012). Developing effective online collaborative science projects by using course scaffolding, a virtual world, and web 2.0 technologies. In Proceeding of Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference 2012 (pp. 728-735). Chesapeake, VA: AACE. (link thru ESC library databases)

• O’Connor, E. (2011). Practical considerations when using virtual spaces for learning and collaboration, with minimal setup and support. In H. H. Yang, & S. C. Yuen (Eds.), Handbook of Research on Practices and Outcomes in Virtual Worlds and Environment. Hershey PA: IGI Global.

• O'Connor, E. (2011). Migrating Towards K12 in Virtual Spaces: Second Life Lessons Learned as Higher Education Meets Middle School Students. In Proceedings of Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference 2011 (pp. 2192-2198). Chesapeake, VA: AACE.

• O’Connor, E.A. (June 2010) Using Second Life (a virtual reality) in Language Instruction: Practical Advice on Getting Started; published with the proceedings of the 4th International Scientific and Methodological Conference on "Information and Communication Technologies in Foreign Language Teaching”

• O'Connor, E. A. (2009). Instructional and Design Elements that Support Effective Use of Virtual Worlds: What Graduate Student Work Reveals about Second Life. Journal of Educational Technology Systems, 38(2), 213-234.

• O’Connor, E. A. and Sakshaug, L. (2009) Preparing for Second Life: Two Teacher Educators Reflect on Their Initial Foray into Virtual Teaching and Learning, Journal of Educational Technology Systems, 37(3), pp. 259-272.

• O'Connor, E. (2008). Becoming a Virtual Instructor: How Can Higher Education Faculty Prepare for Second Life?. In G. Richards (Ed.), Proceedings of World Conference on E-Learning in Corporate, Government, Healthcare, and Higher Education 2008 (pp. 1144-1149). Chesapeake, VA: AACE.

Informative & comfortable startup areas –easy to navigate

Developed by a “science person” so aesthetics sometimes suffers

Posters of student work abound

A building dedicated to science teaching- w/ informal side area (for those less adept at navigating

Inside –web resources & e-portfolio info

Other informal seating areas

-- and materials for the developer courses

Students do like to meet here too

(photo submitted by student)

More interactive areas – with room for meetings too

Even seat for informal meetings and discussions in there areas –again, created by a science person

But some buildings are elegant –created by a 13 year old nephew

But most were available for free and simply put in service for student use and meetings

But students do often like to go on their own adventures

Teleconferencing – the TanbergHas been used for - statewide residencies- orientations- a course meeting

ProsEveryone can see each other to a degreeInformation does not meet to be repeated

ConStill very impersonalTech issuesSpace issues

Integrate peer reviews – have students issue badges

• Peer Reviews — postings for the entire class (private review)

• Students vote for informal badges

• Results (published) found the effectiveness of the interaction and the “caring” the came out of it

• O’Connor, E.A. & McQuigge, A. (2013-2014). Exploring badging for peer review, extended learning and evaluation, and reflective/critical feedback within an online graduate course. Journal of Educational Technology Systems, 42(2), 87-105. (link thru ESC library databases)

Some badges – credly.com

Sharing lessons and discussion perspectives via video

•Video Challenges — student sharing YouTube’s • Increases familiarity and knowledge of others; • Demonstration of lesson done by students • Useful in almost any type of interaction or discussion• Easily done – and for free – with Screencast-o-matic

But, the best reason to use virtual???