Question 19

19. How often during the collaboration did the classes engage each other on a classroom level using these asynchronous tools?

How often were students expected to login and use these asynchronous tools outside of class?


Asynchronous  were a huge help, as students who could not easily access technology were able to connect on their own time and contribute to the discussion boards. 

At least once a week. Students were expected to login at least once a week.

Every week./ ULPGC : students were expected to log on the common LMS (Angel) at least once in each module. And so they did, or more, from September through to December. They were not expected to have any specific number of contacts using alternative  such as email, Skype and FB. Nonetheless, this occurred.

Students at both institutions logged into the blogs multiple times during the week. The challenge for our collaboration was the time zone differences. We had trouble establishing a rhythm for making assignments, giving students time to complete them (in both locations), reviewing the assignments, and responding to the other class’s assignments. The technologies really weren’t the main problem; figuring out the pacing of assignments, given the extensive time lag between institutions was a more significant factor./ It may be most barriers on the MJU class time that  is separated  2 hours in Tuesday and 1 hours in Thursday when TTU students has 3 hours a day.

About 12 of the 17 SJSU students routinely interacted with KGU students inside the classroom environment and outside of class time.  Expectations varied as the semester went along and workload increased.  KGU students were intimidated by D2L, and there were some login challenges early on (alpha, numerical passwords given 0 vs. O and confusion.)

As a class, reference was given to Blackboard web links and file postings. Students were expected to login weekly and use the asynchronous  outside of class with Discussion postings.

Each student was tasked with asynchronous activities for each Tue and Th session, but intensity and workload ranged from shorter exercises (forum posts, blogposts, Wiki entries) to longer assignments over the weekends and the final Wordpress projects

ECollege was used for the online audio meetings once a week. The Discussion Boards within the course design were used by the entire group and by the individual pairings to share analysis and collaborative ideas throughout. Students in pairs Skyped at least two times a week during their work together.

Every week on the SJSU side. Every assignment was assigned and submitted through D2L. Also, when the interview tasks did not end during the synchronous sessions, we used email to complete the interview tasks. Also, when the SJSU students asked Kagoshima students to have their paper proofread, they used email.

Interaction took place at least once per week. Once students got the hang of the technologies being used (Facebook, Twitter, Springpad, Vimeo, Pathbrite), we promoted the completion of activities outside class time. Use was inconsistent among the students. Some students from NCCU and RAMA used Lore during the live class sessions to recap important points, ask questions and socialize with the other students. UNISA students rarely (if ever) interacted on Lore. Students also posted assignments on Lore. Students were expected to use Lore regularly but those expectations may not have been clearly communicated. / Recorded class sessions: Students were asked to view the recorded sessions if they didn’t participate in the live class session. / YouTube: Students viewed YouTube videos created and posted by faculty and students throughout the semester. One assignment required students to create a video describing their experience with Jazz to other students. Additional videos not created by the faculty or students were also shared on Lore. / Google Drive: Students were not required to use Google Drive but used it to access technical help documentation. The links to the help documentation were on Lore.

Students participated regularly in asynchronous discussion boards. The assigned frequency varied through the semester, but I would say one to two posts per week was typical.

Students used Blackboard on a weekly basis.  Blackboard was the primary space for the dissemination of ideas and the space for online discussion so students would log in several times a week.

Students were asked to interact on the course blog weekly, and sometimes two or three time a week. Course topics and synchronous class meetings prompted these dialogues.   Additionally, the Google course website housed all instructional materials including course notes,   powerpoints, lecture captures, and video which students accessed multiple times.  Students did exchange email addresses and were encouraged to email each other outside of class time. 

Students were expected to make a minimum of three contributions to StoryTimed over what was initially a three-week period that we extended to five weeks, for the reasons cited above. Students were expected to hold at least two conversations with partners at the other institution. They were asked to use some specific questions related to shared readings and web sites but also were strongly encouraged to converse in an open-ended fashion with a goal of getting to know one another.

The students were broken down into groups of 3 and each week a particular group was expected to post their critical reponses of that week’s readings and/or videos.  Then after the critical responses were posted, all students at both universities were expected to comment and discuss the responses, videos, and films together for the duration of the week and even collaboration if they found the topic interesting and felt the need to continue collaborating on a certain topic even if we had moved on to another.  Neither Effy nor myself ever felt the need to stop a conversation that continued to grow and expand their knowledge. / Irma and I worked very closely on the structure of the collaborative course and assessment tasks. It seemed rather incongruous not to employ similar strategies. Students were divided into work groups for particular readings and set screenings. I also used the major themes of the readings as a springboard for promoting further research by students. As Irma states, there were particular themes which captured the students’ imagination and this in itself created a flurry of conversations and further explorations. This was the hallmark of the GLC. Students sharing personal knowledge and learning from each other.

There were four specific instances when students were asked to use the faculty imposed (i.e., discussion boards, Animoto, and Voicethread) technologies for class purposes. First, during the first two modules of the course, students were asked to use the discussion board to post personal reflections about their learning. Second, students had to create and share with their classmates a self-introduction video using Animoto. Third, students were asked to use Voicethread to engage in the DIVE (Describe, Interpret, Verify, Educate) Exercise. This assignment required students to post a culture-specific picture to be the focus of the interpretation as well as post audio commentary about their interpretation of their teammates’ picture. Fourth, each team was asked to use Animoto to create a video that encapsulated the identity of the team.  / Students used social networking sites and other preferred channels based on their need. Each student was part of a team that was charged with completing a project. Thus, they needed to interact as frequently as needed to complete their work. We did not track the number of exchanges students had using media of their choice.

There were three GNLC modules (down from an original plan of four modules: 1. Leadership in Transatlantic Public Administration (Module Leaders: Carr & Henderson--the original modules were “leadership/Carr and Henderson/Transatlantic Public Adminstration--but we started the GLNC too late) 2.Brussels & Washington (Module Leaders:  Buonanno, Cuglesan, Steck) 3. Case Study:  Contracting Out & Simulation (Kiernan)  / Originally, this last module was planned to take place over the entire 7-8 weeks of the GNLC.  In the end, we ran it from November 18 through our final exam week in SUNY (December 13 when the videos were posted to Vimeo).

These --email, Web site construction through Microsoft Expression Web at TTU, the Wordwise Moodle site at Jena--were not used in the virtual classroom, which ran on Skype. There were no stated expectations for student use other than what was needed to carry on international discussion and to fulfill group assignments to prepare responses for synchronous presentation.

These took place over 4 weeks, with one week of Spring Break for each institution.  With initial postings and responses, students had to login to the Discussion Boards at least twice per week.  Wiki activity was left up to the students to determine, but firm deadlines meant that they had to form groups and work independently to plan, write, and revise their papers before the end of the term.

They were expected to use them once per week, but this stopped after 5 weeks due to technology failures.

We did not use our LMS for class-to-class asynchronous communication. Apart from completing the asynchronous online assignments, students were not asked to log in to myCourses on any particular days or any particular number of times per week.

We don’t really understand what is meant by engaging “on a classroom level.” We can say that Blackboard was primarily used for hosting discussion boards in the course. Students were required to write at least one post and one response during each case study.