Welcome

This is my second blog.

I have made a distinction between collaboration tool and collaborative learning activities.

Activity: Actions that a user is required to perform.

Learning activity: An activity designed to lead to a learning outcome.


Solo learning activity: A learning activity that can be performed by a single learner in front of the computer, e.g. multiple-choice questions and rule-based simulations.

Collaborative Learning Activity: A learning activity that involves more than one learner, where the learners are communicating with each other either as peer to peer or within assumed roles. The emphasis is on the fact that several learners are engaged in a learning activity or the activity requires the participation of more than one learner.

Asynchronous Collaborative Learning Activity: The collaborative learning activity occurs asynchronously.

Collaboration tools: These are tools that enable learners to share information, discuss ideas and communicate for the purpose of collaboration. Some typical tools are asynchronous conference and/or chat tools.

One of the first examples I used when I discuss this idea with my friends is online version of debate. The face to face version should be similar to most people. Let me just repeat the procedures here:

• There are two debating teams (each team usually made up of 3 persons) debating an issue. One team is the affirmative and the other is negative.


• Team leader of the affirmative team starts the debate by presenting the teams view.


• The team leader of the negative replies.


• Second and third members of the team then presents (alternating between affirmative and negative).


• After all the team members have presented. The debate may be opened to the floor. Audience may ask any question to any team and team member.


• The negative team leader makes the concluding remarks.


• Finally affirmative team leader makes the concluding remarks.


• Judges declare a winning team with optional best debater.

When using debate online, we can use a synchronous collaborative tool such as chat. If the chat supports audio, the experience of the debate for the team members and audience is very similar to the face to face version. However, if the chat only supports text mode, the experience will be very boring most of the time. Our speed of typing is typically several times slower than reading. Watching a member team types (even if the typing is transmitted immediately) is not an exciting and engaging experience. If it is posted at the end of the typing, the long delay is a waste of time for all the other team members and audience.

What I am interested in this blog is to investigate how to improve the procedure of known (or new) pedagogical activities for asynchronous delivery.

For online asynchronous delivery of debate, I would modify the procedure to something like this:

• There are two debating teams (each team usually made up of 3 persons) debating an issue. One team is the affirmative and the other is negative. Time line is set up and agreed by all parties.


• Leader of the both teams post their opening statements by the first agreed time.


• Second members of both teams present their responses at the second agreed time.


• Third members of both teams present their responses at the third agreed time.


• If there is a discussion forum, the debate may be "opened to the floor". Audience may ask any question to any team and team member via the discussion forum.


• Final concluding remarks are posted by both team leaders by the final agreed time.


• Judges declare a winning team with optional best debater.

By using the asynchronous discussion forum, people can participate at any convenient time. There are more time for research and hence the quality of the debate is likely to be better. This can be implemented using low-cost or existing technology.

However, there is some significant changes to the procedures as well. For example, to avoid unnecessary running the debate longer, I have suggested to have both teams to post their opinions at the same agreed time. Audience can read both sides of the argument at the same time. This may change the debate dynamics a little. How significant will that be? That's something I don't know and would seek your input.