Online Learning:
From Research to Application
Dr. Curtis J. Bonk
Associate Professor, Indiana University
President, CourseShare.com
http://php.indiana.edu/~cjbonk,
cjbonk@indiana.edu
Are you ready???
Brains Before and After Elearning
Before
After
And when use synchronous
and asynchronous tools
Tons of Recent Research
Not much of it
...is any good...
Basic Distance Learning Finding?
• Research since 1928 shows that DL
students perform as well as their
counterparts in a traditional
classroom setting.
Per: Russell, 1999, The No Significant Difference
Phenomenon (5th Edition), NCSU, based on
355 research reports.
http://cuda.teleeducation.nb.ca/nosignificantdifference/
Online Learning Research Problems
(National Center for Education Statistics, 1999; Phipps &
Merisotos, 1999; Wisher et al., 1999).






Anecdotal evidence; minimal theory.
Questionable validity of tests.
Lack of control group.
Hard to compare given different
assessment tools and domains.
Fails to explain why the drop-out
rates of distance learners are higher.
Does not relate learning styles to
different technologies or focus on
interaction of multiple technologies.
Online Learning Research Problems
(Bonk & Wisher, 2001)
• For different purposes or domains: in our
study, 13% concern training, 87%
education
• Flaws in research designs
- Only 36% have objective learning
measures
- Only 45% have comparison groups
• When effective, it is difficult to know why
- Course design?
- Instructional methods?
- Technology?
Evaluating Web-Based Instruction:
Methods and Findings (41 studies)
(Olson & Wisher, October, 2002; International Review of
Research in Open and Distance Learning)
Number of Studies
Year of Publication
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
Year
http://www.irrodl.org/content/v3.2/olsen.html
Wisher’s Wish List

Effect size of .5 or higher in
comparison to traditional
classroom instruction.
Web Based
Instruction
Average Effect
Size
Number of
Studies
CBI
Kulik [8]
CBI
Liao [18]
31
.
32
.
11
97
46
.
41
Evaluating Web-Based Instruction:
Methods and Findings
(Olson & Wisher, in review)
“…there is little consensus as to what
variables should be examined and what
measures of of learning are most
appropriate, making comparisons between
studies difficult and inconclusive.”
e.g., demographics (age, gender), previous
experience, course design, instructor effectiveness,
technical issues, levels of participation and
collaboration, recommendation of course, desire to
take add’l online courses.
Evaluating Web-Based Instruction:
Methods and Findings
(Olson & Wisher, 2002)
Variables Studied:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Type of Course: Graduate (18%) vs.
undergraduate courses (81%)
Level of Web Use: All-online (64%) vs.
blended/mixed courses (34%)
Content area (e.g., math/engineering
(27%), science/medicine (24%),
distance ed (15%), social science/educ
(12%), business (10%), etc.)
Attrition data (34%)
Comparison Group (59%)
Some of the Research Gaps
(Bonk & Wisher, 2000)
1)
2)
3)
4)
5)
6)
Variations in Instructor Moderation
Online Debating
Student Perceptions of e-Learning Envir.
Devel of Online Learning Communities
Time Allocation: Instructor and Student
Critical Thinking and Problem Solving
Applications in Sync/Asynchronous Envir
7) Peer Tutoring and Online Mentoring:
8) Student Retention: E-learning and Attrition
9) Graphical Representation of Ideas
10) Online Collaboration
Many forms of Online Instruction
The Web Integration Continuum
(Bonk et al., 2001)
Level 1: Course Marketing/Syllabi via the Web
Level 2: Web Resource for Student Exploration
Level 3: Publish Student-Gen Web Resources
Level 4: Course Resources on the Web
Level 5: Repurpose Web Resources for Others
================================
Level 6: Web Component is Substantive & Graded
Level 7: Graded Activities Extend Beyond Class
Level 8: Entire Web Course for Resident Students
Level 9: Entire Web Course for Offsite Students
Level 10: Course within Programmatic Initiative
Learning Improved…
(Maki et al., 2000)




Intro to Psych: Lecture vs. Online
Online performed better on
midterms.
Web-based course students scored
higher since had weekly activities
due
Lecture students could put off
reading until night before exam.
Learning Improved…
(review by Chang, 2003)



Online outperformed peers in histology
(anatomy—plant and animal tissues under
microscope) course (Shoenfeld-Tacher et al.,
2001)
Web enhancements raised exam performance,
grades, & attitudes toward economics
 Agarwal and Day (1998)
Online business communications students
performed better on final exams than on
campus (Tucker, 2000)
Integrating Wireless Content
Syllabus Magazine, May 13, 2003

Study by Mobile Learning Corp:
group of college institutions



Digital content helped first-year
college accounting students learn
Online interactive exercises useful to
student learning
Encouraged independent student
learning, and instructors to adopt
coaching role.
Learning Worse
(Wang & Newlin, 2000)







Stat Methods: Lecture vs. Online
No diffs at midterm
Lecture 87 on final, Web a 72
Course relatively unstructured
Web students encouraged to collab
Lecture students could not collab
All exams but final were open book
Learning Improved or Not…
Organizational Behavior, IUSE
(Keefe, Educause Quarterly, 1, 2003)

Keefe studied 4 semesters of courses, 6
sections, 118 students
 Face-to-face more satisfied with course and
instructor
 Those in online course associated with
lower grades
Online Findings:
Other Concerns




Requires instructor be responsive any time
 Ottenhoff & Lawrence (1999).
A study of 436 educational Web sites--instructors use
simple and limited communication tools
 Mioduser, Nachmias, Lahav, & Oren (1998)
Few syllabi posted to World Lecture Hall utilized Web
for interaction and collaboration
None utilized practitioners as mentors
 Cummings, Bonk, & Jacobs (2002)
Learning Improved or Not…
(Sankaran et al., 2000)


Students with a positive attitude
toward Web format learned more
in Web course than in lecture
course.
Students with positive attitude
toward lecture format learned
more in lecture format.
Contrasting Findings are the Norm


Some courses impersonal,
isolating, and frustrating (Hara &
Kling, 2001)
Sense of community and lower
attrition rates when support
interactivity, reflection, and
sharing (Harnishfeger, March,
2003)
Different Goals…






Making connections
Appreciating different perspectives
Students as teachers
Greater depth of discussion
Fostering critical thinking online
Interactivity online
Student Basic Quantitative





Grades, Achievement Test Scores, etc.
Number of Posts
Overall Participation
Computer Log Activity—peak usage,
messages/day, time of task or in system
Attitude Surveys
Student High-End Success






Message complexity, depth, interactivity,
questioning
Collaboration skills
Problem finding/solving and critical
thinking
Challenging and debating others
Case-based reasoning, critical thinking
measures
Portfolios, performances, PBL activities
Other Measures of Student Success
(Focus groups, interviews, observations,
surveys, exams, records)






Positive Feedback, Recommendations
Increased Comprehension, Achievement
High Retention in Program
Completion Rates or Course Attrition
Jobs Obtained, Internships
Enrollment Trends for Next Semester
Electronic Conferencing:
Quantitative Analyses






Usage patterns, # of messages, cases,
responses
Length of case, thread, response
Average number of responses
Timing of cases, commenting,
responses, etc.
Types of interactions (1:1; 1: many)
Data mining (logins, peak usage, location, session
length, paths taken, messages/day/week), Time-Series
Analyses (trends)
Electronic Conferencing:
Qualitative Analyses

General: Observation Logs, Reflective

Specific: Semantic Trace Analyses,

Emergent: Forms of Learning Assistance,
interviews, Retrospective Analyses,
Focus Groups
Talk/Dialogue Categories (Content talk,
questioning, peer feedback, social
acknowledgments, off task)
Levels of Questioning, Degree of Perspective
Taking, Case Quality, Participant Categories
Overall frequency of interactions
across chat categories (6,601 chats).
On-Task
Social
Mechanics
Mechanics
15%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
On-Task
55%
Social
30%
20%
10%
0%
Month 1,2
Month 3,4
Month 5,6
Network Conferencing Interactivity
(Rafaeli & Sudweeks, 1997)
1. > 50 percent of messages were reactive.
2. Only around 10 percent were truly interactive.
3. Most messages factual stmts or opinions
4. Many also contained questions or requests.
5. Frequent participators more reactive than low.
6. Interactive messages more opinions & humor.
7. More self-disclosure, involvement, &
belonging.
8. Attracted to fun, open, frank, helpful,
supportive environments.
Starter
Centered
Interaction
(Hara, Bonk, & Angeli, 2000):
Scattered
Interaction
(no starter):
Week 4
Nonnative speakers did not assume roles,
Americans used role names,
Ching-Fen Chang (May 2003)
Ching-Fen Chang (May 2003)

…it appeared that the Web-based
forum discussions especially
enabled the nonnative speakers of
English to contribute to the class
discussions by providing more
opportunities to contribute than
face-to-face discussions.
Schallert & Reed, AERA, April 2003



Nonnative students do not participate
equally in written discussions
Enthusiastic and frequent contributors
do not necessarily make intellectually
significant contributions.
Some who seem deeply engaged may be
less rigorously engaged in many
conversations
Collaborative Behaviors
(Curtis & Lawson, 1997)




Most common were: (1) Planning, (2)
Contributing, and (3) Seeking Input.
Other common events were:
(4) Initiating activities,
(5) Providing feedback,
(6) Sharing knowledge
Few students challenge others or attempt to
explain or elaborate
Recommend: using debates and modeling
appropriate ways to challenge others
Online Collaboration Behaviors
by Categories (US and Finland)
Behavior
Categories
Planning
Conferences (%)
Finland
U.S.
Average
0.0
0.0
0.0
Contributing
80.8
76.6
78.7
Seeking
Input
12.7
21.0
16.8
Reflection/
Monitoring
6.1
2.2
4.2
Social
Interaction
0.4
0.2
0.3
100.0
100.0
100.0
Total
Dimensions of Learning Process
(Henri, 1992)
1. Participation (rate, timing, duration of
messages)
2. Interactivity (explicit interaction, implicit
interaction, & independent comment)
3. Social Events (stmts unrelated to content)
4. Cognitive Events (e.g., clarifications,
inferencing, judgment, and strategies)
5. Metacognitive Events (e.g., both
metacognitive knowledge—person, and task,
and strategy and well as metacognitive
skill—evaluation, planning, regulation, and
self-awareness)
Some Findings
Cognitive Skills Displayed in Online
(see Hara,Conferencing
Bonk, & Angeli, 2000)
Social (in 26.7% of units coded)
 40
More inferences & judgments than elem
clarifications and in-depth clarifications
of
St
ra
ts
Ju
dg
me
nt
Inf
er
en
cin
g
Ap
pli
c

Cognitive Skills
More reflections on exper & self-awareness
Some planning, eval, & regulation & self q’ing
InDe
pt
h

Cl
ar
if
Metacognitive (in 56% of units)
Cl
ar
if

social cues decreased as semester progressed
messages gradually became less formal
became more embedded within statement
Cognitive (in 81.7% of units)
Ele
m
Percent of Coded Units
35
30

25
20
15
 10
5
0
Surface vs. Deep Posts
(Henri, 1992)
Surface Processing





making judgments
without justification,
stating that one shares
ideas or opinions already
stated,
repeating what has been
said
asking irrelevant
questions
i.e., fragmented, narrow,
and somewhat trite.
In-depth Processing





linked facts and ideas,
offered new elements of
information,
discussed advantages and
disadvantages of a
situation,
made judgments that were
supported by examples
and/or justification.
i.e., more integrated,
weighty, and refreshing.
Level of Cognitive Processing:
All Posts
Both
12%
Surface
33%
Surface
Deep
Deep
55%
Both
Critical Thinking
(Newman, Johnson, Webb & Cochrane, 1997)
Used Garrison’s five-stage critical
thinking model
 Critical thinking in both CMC and FTF envir.
 Depth of critical thinking higher in CMC envir.




More likely to bring in outside information
Link ideas and offer interpretations,
Generate important ideas and solutions.
FTF settings were better for generating new
ideas and creatively exploring problems.
Unjustified Statements (US)
24. Author: Katherine
Date: Apr. 27 3:12 AM 1998
I agree with you that technology is definitely taking a large
part in the classroom and will more so in the future…
25. Author: Jason
Date: Apr. 28 1:47 PM 1998
I feel technology will never over take the role of the teacher...I
feel however, this is just help us teachers...
26. Author: Daniel
Date: Apr. 30 0:11 AM 1998
I believe that the role of the teacher is being changed by
computers, but the computer will never totally replace the teacher...
I believe that the computers will eventually make teaching easier for
us and that most of the children's work will be done on computers.
But I believe that there…
Indicators for the Quality of Students’ Dialogue
(Angeli, Valanides, & Bonk, in review)
ID
Examples
Indicators
1
Social
acknowledgement/
Sharing/Feedback
HHello, good to hear from you…I agree,
2
Unsupported
statements (advice)
II think you should try this….This is what I
would do…
3
Questioning for
clarification and
extend dialogue
·
4
Critical thinking,
Reasoned thinkingjudgment
good point, great idea
Could you give us more info?
·
…explain what you mean
by…?
\\
II disagree with X, because in class we
discussed….I see the following
disadvantages to this approach….
Social Construction of Knowledge
(Gunawardena, Lowe, & Anderson, 1997)

Five Stage Model
1. Share ideas,
2. Discovery of Idea Inconsistencies,
3. Negotiate Meaning/Areas Agree,
4. Test and Modify,
5. Phrase Agreements


In global debate, very task driven.
Dialogue remained at Phase I: sharing info
Problem-Based Learning
Distance Ed, 23(1), 2002
Practical learning issues generated more
interactions and higher levels of interaction
than theoretical issues
Communities of learners need to negotiate
identity and knowledge and need milestones
(chat session agreements, producing reports,
sharing stories, and new work patterns)
Group development: (1) negotiate problem and
timetable, (2) divide work in subgroups, and
(3) produce drafts of products
Social Constructivism and Learning
Communities Online (SCALCO) Scale.
(Bonk & Wisher, 2000)
___ 1. The topics discussed online had real world
relevance.
___ 2. The online environment encouraged me to
question ideas and perspectives.
___ 3. I received useful feedback and mentoring
from others.
___ 4. There was a sense of membership in the
learning here.
___ 5. Instructors provided useful advice and
feedback online.
___ 6. I had some personal control over course
activities and discussion.
Problems and Solutions
(Bonk, Wisher, & Lee, in press)
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Tasks Overwhelm
Confused on Web
Too Nice Due to
Limited Share
History
Lack Justification
Hard not to preach
Too much data
Communities not
easy to form







Train and be clear
Structure time/dates
due
Develop roles and
controversies
Train to back up claims
Students take lead role
Use Email Pals
Embed Informal/Social
Benefits and Implications
(Bonk, Wisher, & Lee, in press)
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Shy open up online 
Minimal off task

Delayed collab more 
rich than real time
Students can

generate lots of info
Minimal disruptions 
Extensive E-Advice 
Excited to Publish

Use async conferencing
Create social tasks
Use Async for debates;
Sync for help, office hours
Structure generation and
force reflection/comment
Foster debates/critique
Find Experts or Prac.
Ask Permission
More Implications






Include Variety: tasks, topics,
participants, accomplishments, etc.
Make interaction extend beyond
class
Have learners be teachers
Find multiple ways to succeed
Add personalization and choice
Provide clarity and easy navigation
Ten Ways Online Ed Matches or Surpasses FTF,
Mark Kassop, Technology Source, Michigan Virtual Univ,
May/June 2003
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
Student-centered learning
Writing intensity
Highly interactive discussions
Geared for lifelong learning
Enriched course materials
Online demand interaction and support
Immediate feedback
Flexibility
An intimate community of learners
Faculty development and rejuvenation
My Evaluation Plan…
Considerations in Evaluation Plan
8. University
or
Organization
7. Program
6. Course
5. Tech Tool
1. Student
2. Instructor
3. Training
4. Task
Other Evaluation Plans
1.
Quality on the Line: Benchmarks for Success in
Internet-Based Distance Ed (e.g., the
teaching/learning process) (Blackboard & NEA, 2000)

2.
http://www.ihep.com/Pubs/PDF/Quality.pdf
The Pedagogical Rating of Online Courses
Syllabus Magazine, Jan, 2002, Nishikant Sonwalkar
Best Practices:
Who are some of the key
scholars and promoters…???
Three Most Vital Skills
The Online Teacher, TAFE, Guy Kemshal-Bell (April, 2001)







Ability to engage the learner (30)
Ability to motivate online learners (23)
Ability to build relationships (19)
Technical ability (18)
Having a positive attitude (14)
Adapt to individual needs (12)
Innovation or creativity (11)
Let’s brainstorm comments (words
or short phrases) that reflect your
overall attitudes and feelings
towards online teaching…
Feelings Toward Online Teaching
The Online Teacher, TAFE, Guy Kemshal-Bell (April, 2001)
(Note: 94 practitioners surveyed.)








Exciting (30)
Challenging (24)
Time consuming (22)
Demanding (18)
Technical issue (16); Flexibility (16)
Potential (15)
Better options (14); Frustrating (14)
Collab (11); Communication (11); Fun (11)
Changing Role of the Teacher
The Online Teacher, TAFE, Guy Kemshal-Bell (April, 2001)





From oracle to guide and resource
provider
From providers of answers to expert
questioners
From solitary teacher to member of
team
From total control of teaching
environment to sharing as a fellow
student
From provider of content to designer
of learning experiences.
Dennen’s Research on Nine
Online Courses
(sociology, history, communications, writing, library science,
technology, counseling)
Poor Instructors





Little or no feedback
given
Always authoritative
Kept narrow focus of
what was relevant
Created tangential
discussions
Only used “ultimate”
deadlines
Good Instructors





Provided regular
qual/quant feedback
Participated as peer
Allowed perspective
sharing
Tied discussion to
grades, other
assessments.
Used incremental
deadlines
Common Instructor Complaints
a)
b)
c)
d)
e)
f)
Students don’t participate
Students all participate at the
last minute
Students post messages but don’t
converse
Facilitation takes too much time
If they must be absent, the
discussion dies off
Students are confused
Reasons why...
Students don’t participate
 Because it isn’t required
 Because they don’t know what is
expected
Students all participate at last minute
 Because that is what was required
 Because they don’t want to be the
first
Instructor posts at the last minute
Research on Instructors Online



If teacher-centered, less explore,
engage, interact (Peck, and Laycock, 1992)
Informal, exploratory conversation
fosters risktaking & knowledge sharing
(Weedman, 1999)
Job Varies--Plan, Interaction, Admin,
Tchg
 (McIsaac, Blocher, Mahes, & Vrasidas,
1999)
Study of Four Classes
(Bonk, Kirkley, Hara, & Dennen, 2001)




Technical—Train, early tasks, be flexible,
orientation task
Managerial—Initial meeting, FAQs, detailed
syllabus, calendar, post administrivia, assign
e-mail pals, gradebooks, email updates
Pedagogical—Peer feedback, debates, PBL,
cases, structured controversy, field reflections,
portfolios, teams, inquiry, portfolios
Social—Café, humor, interactivity, profiles,
foreign guests, digital pics, conversations,
guests
But there is a Problem…
How Bad Is It?
“Some frustrated Blackboard users who say
the company is too slow in responding to
technical problems with its coursemanagement software have formed an
independent users’ group to help one
another and to press the company to
improve.”
(Jeffrey Young, Nov. 2, 2001, Chronicle of
Higher Ed)
Must Online Learning be Boring?
What Motivates Adult Learners
to Participate?
Motivational Terms?
See Johnmarshall Reeve (1996). Motivating Others: Nurturing inner
motivational resources. Boston: Allyn & Bacon. (UW-Milwaukee)
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
Tone/Climate: Psych Safety, Comfort, Belonging
Feedback: Responsive, Supports, Encouragement
Engagement: Effort, Involvement, Excitement
Meaningfulness: Interesting, Relevant, Authentic
Choice: Flexibility, Opportunities, Autonomy
Variety: Novelty, Intrigue, Unknowns
Curiosity: Fun, Fantasy, Control
Tension: Challenge, Dissonance, Controversy
Interactive: Collaborative, Team-Based,
Community
Goal Driven: Product-Based, Success, Ownership
1. Tone/Climate: Ice Breakers
A. Eight Nouns Activity:
1. Introduce self using 8 nouns
2. Explain why choose each noun
3. Comment on 1-2 peer postings
B. Coffee House Expectations
1. Have everyone post 2-3 course expectations
2. Instructor summarizes and comments on how they
might be met
(or make public commitments of how they will fit into
busy schedules!)
2. Feedback
Requiring Peer Feedback
Alternatives:
A. Require minimum # of peer
comments and give guidance (e.g.,
they should do…)
B. Peer Feedback Through
Templates—give templates to
complete peer evaluations.
C. Have e-papers contest(s)
3. Engagement:
Electronic Voting and Polling
1. Ask students to vote on issue before class
(anonymously or send directly to the
instructor)
2. Instructor pulls our minority pt of view
3. Discuss with majority pt of view
4. Repoll students after class
(Option B: Delphi or Timed Disclosure Technique:
anomymous input till a due date
and then post results and
reconsider until consensus
Rick Kulp, IBM, 1999)
4. Meaningfulness:
A. Professional/E-mail Interviews
1. Field Definition Activity:
Have student interview (via email, if necessary) someone working in
the field of study and share their results

As a class, pool interview results and develop a group
description of what it means to be a professional in the
field
4. Meaningfulness:
B. Field Observation Reflections
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Instructor provides reflection or
prompt for job related or field
observations
Reflect on job setting or observe in
field
Record notes on Web and reflect on
concepts from chapter
Respond to peers
Instructor summarizes posts
5. Choice:
A. Discussion: Starter-Wrapper
1.
2.
Starter reads ahead and starts
discussion and others participate
and wrapper summarizes what
was discussed.
Start-wrapper with roles--same as #1
but include roles for debate (optimist,
pessimist, devil's advocate).
Alternative: Facilitator-Starter-Wrapper Instead
of starting discussion, student acts as
moderator or questioner to push student
thinking and give feedback
5. Choice:
B. Discussion: Multiple Topics




Generate multiple discussion prompts and ask
students to participate in 2 out of 3
Provide different discussion “tracks” (much
like conference tracks) for students with
different interests to choose among
List possible topics and have students vote
(students sign up for lead diff weeks)
Have students list and vote.
6. Variety: Just-In-Time-Teaching
Gregor Novak, IUPUI Physics Professor
(teaches teamwork, collaboration, and
effective communication):
1.
2.
Lectures are built around student
answers to short quizzes that have
an electronic due date just hours
before class.
Instructor reads and summarizes
responses before class and weaves
them into discussion and changes
the lecture as appropriate.
7. Curiosity:
A. Electronic Seance







Students read books from famous dead people
Convene when dark (sync or asynchronous).
Present present day problem for them to solve
Participate from within those characters (e.g.,
read direct quotes from books or articles)
Invite expert guests from other campuses
Keep chat open for set time period
Debrief
7. Curiosity:
B. Electronic Guests & Mentoring
Find article or topic that is controversial
2.
Invite person associated with that article
(perhaps based on student suggestions)
3.
Hold real time chat
4.
Pose questions
5.
Discuss and debrief (i.e., did anyone change
their minds?)
(Alternatives: Email Interviews with experts
Assignments with expert reviews)
1.
8. Tension: Role Play
A. Role Play Personalities



List possible roles or personalities (e.g., coach,
optimist, devil’s advocate, etc.)
Sign up for different role every week (or 5-6 key
roles)
Perform within roles—refer to different
personalities
B. Assume Persona of Scholar



Enroll famous people in your course
Students assume voice of that person for one
or more sessions
Enter debate topic, respond to debate topic,
or respond to rdg reflections
9. Interactive:
A. Critical/Constructive Friends,
Email Pals, Web Buddies
1.
2.
3.
4.
Assign a critical friend (perhaps based on
commonalities).
Post weekly updates of projects, send
reminders of due dates, help where needed.
Provide criticism to peer (i.e., what is strong
and weak, what’s missing, what hits the
mark) as well as suggestions for
strengthening.
Reflect on experience.
9. Interactive:
B. Symposia, Press Conference, or
Panel of Experts
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Find topic during semester that peaks interest
Find students who tend to be more controversial
Invite to a panel discussion on a topic or theme
Have them prepare statements
Invite questions from audience (rest of class)
Assign panelists to start
(Alternative: Have a series of press
conferences at the end of small group
projects; one for each group)
10. Goal Driven: Gallery Tours
Assign Topic or Project
(e.g., Team or Class White
Paper, Bus Plan, Study
Guide, Glossary, Journal,
Model Exam Answers)
 Students Post to Web
 Experts Review and Rate
 Try to Combine Projects

Motivational Top Ten
1. Tone/Climate/Ice Breakers: 8 nouns, expectations
2. Feedback: require fdbk, templates, e-papers contests
3. Engagement: polling, voting, timed disclosure
4. Meaningfulness: e-mail interviews, field observations
5. Choice: starter-wrapper, multiple tracks/topics
6. Variety: just-in-time-teaching
7. Curiosity: seances, electronic guests/mentors
8. Tension: role play, assume persona of a scholar
9. Interactive: e-pals, symposia, expert panels
10. Goal Driven: gallery tours
Pick one you can use…??? (circle one)
Some Final Advice…
Or Maybe Some Questions???