16. What LMS (e.g. Blackboard, Moodle) or other tools (e.g. Google, Facebook, etc.) did you use to maintain asynchronous (not real-time) communications between students?
If you used multiple tools, what was the approximate percentage students spent using each of these tools?
Angel + Blackboard Collaborate / ULPGC : students from both institutions were interacting on the Angel platform, the ESC LMS. This means that the ESC students were “at home” and that ULPGC student were “guests”. ESC students did not need to learn how to navigate through a new LMS but ULPGC needed to; ESC did not need to learn how to navigate through Blackboard Collaborate but ULPGC students needed to. In addition to the LMS, some ULPGC students used email, Skype and Facebook to communicate with their ESC classmates.
Blackboard 9.0, Facebook (20%) and e-mail (10%)
Texas Tech students used Moodle all semester. The Moodle contained course requirements, a forum for questions related to the TTU assignments, and weekly assignment descriptions. We used WordPress blogs for the first two assignments collaborating with the MyongJi students, and we used YouTube for the final collaborative assignments. / MJU students used a course blog called ‘knowledge hank cafe.’ The blogs are used to publish the news and gathering the data depending on technical communications, uploading their assignments, QnAs, and useful tips.
Blackboard and it was quite effective and well received at both institutions.
Blackboard was the LMS and various emails were used to maintain asynchronous communications between students. Students also used Google and Facebook to conduct their synchronous interview assignments.
Blackboard was the primary method, although the students on their own made use of some other technologies--primarily e-mail--to communicate with one another.
Both classes used Blackboard CE version 8, YouTube, a Facebook Group page and Windows Audio Recorder. Students used smart phones, laptops, desktops, iPad, Tablet for communication and recording movement and voice. The instructors and the instructional designer met frequently, as many times as once a week, via Skype. / Email was the main source of communication between instructors and the instructional designer due to time differences. Australian students mainly used smart phones to communicate with the American students via Blackboard and Facebook. The American students used primarily laptops and desktops. / The highest percentage was with the Blackboard LMS, as they were required to post on the LMS once a fortnight. Approximately 80 percent of engagement would have been via blackboard.
Both UDLAP and UC use Blackboard 9.1, so for the shared modules, we created visitor accounts for the UDLAP students and added them to our Blackboard course. This necessitated the UDLAP students having two Blackboard course sites, one for the unshared portion of the class, and one for the shared portion, but this seemed the least disruptive, least logistically difficult way to offer the shared the modules. / The Blackboard that were used in the collaborative modules were the Discussion Board and the Wiki. There were three dedicated discussion boards for the shared modules of the class. The Google Earth Tours were posted to a discussion board, and students were required to both post their own tours and respond to a tour from a student from the other country. The students from each country were also paired up to discuss reactions to two films on feminicides in Canada and Mexico. Finally, students were required to post their reactions to a branching scenario in which they attempt to cross borders between Mexico and the United States and the US and Canada. / The Blackboard wiki was used by students from both institutions to collaboratively write research papers. The Blackboard wiki was used for two collaborative assignments - one a collaboratively written analytical paper written by teams of UC students, and the other a collaboratively written research paper written by transnational teams from UC and UDLAP. / In addition, the students were required to friend each other on Facebook to create connections they could use in working on collaborative projects. The two classes also created their own Facebook page and shared information between them this way. Through this Facebook group, they formed their teams for their collaborative research project this way, which was fascinating because this was student led, not instructor initiated. / Finally, students made use of Google Earth to create tours of each other’s campuses to share with their counterparts in the other country. This effort combined , as they posted their .KMZ tour files to the Bb discussion board. / As a percentage, I would say that approximately 75% of the time was spent on Blackboard, and 20% of time spent on Facebook, and 5% of time spent on Google Earth.
Desire2Learn / Facebook / We focused on Facebook usage for communicative and coordination tasks because of its hooks into mobile technology with notifications.
E-college (all), Skype (all), email (all)
Email addresses and Skype addresses were distributed to all concerned, and the students were invited to experiment with different means of communication. During the ten weeks of the mutual period of the two seminars, all students were divided into smaller international groups, and these groupings would then be changed or self-regenerated to allow for temporary interest clusters to coalesce around announced topics of discussion. On the TTU side, the general sense of the students was that due to the time difference, Skyping outside of the common seminar period was difficult, and so networked communications tended to default to asynchronous email threads. / The German group used a Moodle variant (Wordwise) that is common in their institute, the American group was also invited to join this LMS, but they rather relied on the American system in use at their university, which for Clarke was a continuously updated course Web site.
Faculty members required students to use certain channels, whereas students were also asked to use channels to maintain communication among members of the work teams. Moodle was used as our learning management system. The channels faculty members required students to use include: (a) discussion boards via Moodle, (b) Voicethread, and (c) Animoto. Students tended to favor social networking sites including facebook and the Russian site В контакте (=Vcontacte).
First during the spring term of 2012, and again during the subsequent fall term, two sections of the required first-year writing course offered by RIT and ACMT were electronically linked using a shared learning technology, myCourses (Desire2Learn).
LMS used was Google Sites and Google Blogger (75%), YouTube and Lecture Capture (25 %) for asynchronous instruction. All course learning resources were also made available on the Brockport Angel LMS.
LMS: Lore.com - used for communication with and between students, resource library, course calendar, and assignment submissions: 60% / Recorded class sessions: students not able to participate in the live class session were able to watch the class on-demand: 20% / YouTube: students viewed and created videos: 15% / Google Docs (Drive): Used for technical documentation to assist students with the technology: 5%
Moodle was the LMS used to support the class structure and student interactions. We also used Google Maps to create a visualization of participant’s hometowns.
Moodle, VoiceThread, Youtube, Xythos network storage
The team elected to use Buffalo State’s ANGEL instance to offer Transatlantic Public Administration. This offered the advantages of faculty familiarity with the LMS and offering help desk services to all course participants. Each of the non-Buffalo State students were created a guest account within the LMS. / LMS choice was problematic: / There was a great deal of confusion and non-response in the months leading up to the decision to utilize Buffalo State’s LMS. Dr. Buonanno did not want to use her system because she had the sense that it would place additional burdens on her and Buffalo State. She thought that it would be best to use Atlantis funds to build our own site on Moodle. Unfortunately, no one in the team seemed to have the skills or the desire to build a site from scratch. There is now talk--if we teach this course again in the fall (Buffalo State is reserving judgement until after this case study and COIL institute whether to participate)--of MMU taking responsibility by hiring a graduate student to build a site on Moodle. It is unclear at this time, however, whether MMU would use its LMS (which is Moodle) or would house on Moodle’s free hosting. / Buonanno felt strongly that part of the the COIL training should be to offer a Moodle template to facilitate the building of a GNLC. In this way, no institution (and therefore, an extra burden is placed on that faculty member) has to be responsible for the LMS. She also thinks it complicates ownership and branding. / FACEBOOK / Dr. Natalia Cuglesan (BBU) created a Facebook site prior to the fall semester, which proved to be very helpful in bringing everyone together into the ANGEL course housed on Buffalo State entitled “Transatlantic Public Policy Course” http://www.facebook.com/groups/474925389206869/. It turned out to be very, very active - the team leaders (we will discuss the team project later in this case study) used Facebook heavily as a means to get in touch with their group members. / VIMEO / Dr. Buonanno purchased a one-year subscription to VIMEO for the team to post an instructional video for the capstone simulation. The students also posted their “pitches” to VIMEO. / http://vimeo.com/52697687 (GNLC team introduced to students and Professor Carr provides background and instruction for the simulation.)
We created a Web 2.0 platform using NING that consisted of our lectures, readings, discussion forums as well as a video link that allowed our students to upload the short digital stories that they created throughout the collaboration. Additionally, the NING site allowed each student to create their own personal pages where they were able to communicate with one another on a personal level. This was important because it allowed them to form personal friendships, which enhanced their trust in one another and made their experience more comfortable. / The Ning site catered for all asynchronous communication. Prior to the collaboration there were many discussions about how we were to approach this. What did eventuate was a well-planned design architecture which anticipated many different types of communication. This I felt would serve students with special needs (i.e. recently arrived migrants reluctant to post their work in a public forum). So the most important consideration was to create public and private spaces on the site, not only for assessment tasks but also for informal conversations between students. As Irma has stated above personal pages served their purpose. In short, private and discreet communication was allayed with semi- public and public spaces. / I also used email communication. This became a direct line to remind students of upcoming readings or postings.
We created and used a “Global Cafe” discussion session in D2L. Students also developed relationships with students outside of the used in class (their own facebook page, personal email).
We used Blackboard as our shared site. We also used VoiceThread and Prezi for collaborative assignments.
We used D2L(Desire 2 Learn) and google email, but some of my students were using Facebook individually.
We used StoryTimed and e-mail. Students worked with both throughout the collaboration. It is difficult to measure percentage time, but we would estimate that about 30-40 percent of the collaboration took place via these venues. Some students also used Facebook instant messaging, and others used emails.