Reflective 2

I particularly enjoyed chapter 2 of CSCL 2, which discussed collaborative learning via “computer-supported learning environments.” ( Oshima & Oshima, 2002). According to the writings of several authors including, Scardamalia, Berteiter, and others, learners can externalize their thoughts by the use of texts or graphics (notes) in order to proceed through their own knowledge as a communal effort and utilize the expertise of others for personal advancement. Research provides the means to discern the favorability of communal learning by means of discussion groups for learner advancement which can build further discourse by extending its use to other cultures.
Relationship between the use of technology and instructional strategies/scaffolds between the role of technology and the role of a teacher/instructor/facilitator for this particular study includes:
As described in the study, group A and group B, were expert learners tested in a synchronous and asynchronous style of learning with the introduction of WEB based CSILE as the backdrop for learning activities. According to Keegan, 1996, learning by asynchronous technology was introduced to correspondence schools and does not require that student and facilitator participate together; on the other hand, synchronous instruction requires the student and facilitator join together in “real time” to facilitate student progression (Johnson, 2006).
The use of technology for instructional strategies is supported by Jong & Joolingen, 1998, as an aid for the learner to become an active participant in the process of knowledge attainment by computer based learning environments. Theories mentioned by Reil & Polin suggest that knowledge development is associated with the changing role in the community and should be a socially managed experience. Technology used in this study is based on scientific discourse known as WEBCSILE, in order to challenge the learner and prompt a higher level of understanding.
A teacher strategy for both groups concentrated on placing a greater focus on solving problems in a collaborative manner. Even as, group A, began with note cards to record their thoughts and share with other students, the transition to doing the same via discussion groups worked seamlessly, supporting the advantage of allowing students to view others in the same window and focusing students on the same problems (Koschmann, Hall, & Miyake, 2002).
Another teacher strategy for group A and B provided that the student think focally. Graduate students in the study communicated readily via WEBCSILE that previously was generated in the face to face instructor/student genre. The student’s main goal was for knowledge advancement and could project learning from a different method, as long as, the method fulfilled the learning objective. According to Bonk and Zhang, 2006, online learning increases internalization of the student knowledge base and expands their learning “pursuit.” Dewey projected that learning from active participation with focal direction occurred more often than for those who choose to sit on the side lines and not participate (Koschmann, et al., 2002).
*The instructor was present and accessible for community A, but refrained from furthering the teacher responsibilities, such as analyzing student progression, giving clear instruction, or providing teacher reflections. Without teacher presence, community group B, progressed without clear understanding or guidance.
Group C, the novice learner, was privy to the teacher strategy, which placed the greatest focus on problem-centered collaboration (Koschmann, et. al., 2002).

Question 2: Design of virtual community
I would need the tools such as, PBWIKI, in order to provide the discourse for case studies for the initial set-up. After the researching the success of this site, further options, such as DL2 or ANGEL, could be purchased by the community college to broaden the capabilities of online learning. According to Seely Brown (2007), knowledge has two sides, the explicit which is the concept side and the action side; termed tacit knowledge. Tacit knowledge develops between the student and the instructor as shared understanding slowly emerges.
The goals consist of presenting case study questions on PBWIKI that require critical thinking and reasoning. Postings for the studies would correspond to the theory class taught the first of the week and would be due by Friday of the same week. Other exercises could be initiated, which can a self grading system, such as hangman, word puzzles, and quizzes to enhance the understanding of anatomy and physiology and serve as a backdrop for critical thinking. This is a shift from the conventional face-to-face instruction that blends a variety of learning formats and gives the opportunity for an assortment of different learning options (Bonk & Zhang, 2008).
The instructor will design the case studies in accordance with the asynchronous theory content, game activities, and theory definitions and provide student guidance throughout the case study scenarios. Also, the instructor will provide the case study, for example: A 52-year old, with a history of a myocardial infarction is 2 days post op from a coronary bypass. Students will be asked what the initial assessment should focus on, what are the risk factors associated with his past history and his current surgery, what are the educational components for this type of surgery, what are the lab values and medications associated with this type of illness/surgery, and what should be the highest priority nursing diagnosis. With this scenario the student must know the anatomy and physiologies of the heart, read sections in their text book, and listen to theory presented first part of the week. The instructor will guide the discussion online via PBWIKI, to make sure the students stay on task. Dewey (1984) sums up the process of “real” knowledge attainment by discussing the fact that students learn by social involvement with others, adding the thought, “human nature is part of nature (Bonk & Zhang, 2008). Dewey articulated that teachers should not wait for “children” to stumble into experiences that educate them, but instead, the educator should be responsible to create educating experiences for the student (Koschmann, et. al, 2002).
The Read, reflect, display, and do (R2D2) model is described by, Bonk and Zhang (2008), as an educator’s tool to delineate age differences, learning preferences and cultural influences of the students allowing for a successful learning environment (Bonk & Zhang, 2008). This design suggests giving reading materials to the auditory and verbal learner and display for the visual learner. To accommodate the observational learner, short reflective paragraphs can be written in class, after theory, to assist the student through the week with their case studies and provide them with what they know and what they need to study.

References
Bonk, C. & Zhang, K. (2008) Empowering online learning: 100+ Activities for reading, reflection, displaying, & doing. Jossey-Bass, a Wiley Imprint. San Francisco, Ca. 3-7.
Bonk, C. & Zhang, K. (2006). Introducing the R2D2 model: Online learning for the diverse learners of this world. Distance Education. 27(2) 258.
Brown, J. (2007). Learning, working & playing in the digital age. 1999 Conference of American Association for Higher Education. 1-6.
Johnson, G. (2006). Synchronous and asynchronous text-based CMC in educational contexts: A review of recent research. Techtrends.50(4), 46-51.
Jong, T. & Joolingen, W. (1998). Scientific discovery learning with computer simulations of conceptual domains. Review of Education Research. 68, 1-3.
Koschmann, T., Hall, R., & Miyake, N. (2002), Carrying forward the conversation: CSCL2. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Mahwah, New Jersey. 259-262.
Oshima, J. & Oshima, R. (2002). Coordination of Asynchronous and synchronous communication: Coordination of asynchronous and synchronous communication: Differences in qualities of knowledge advancement discourse between experts and novices. In T. Koschmann, R. Hall & N. Miyake (Eds.), CSCL 2: Carrying Forward the Conversation. (pp. 55-77). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Reil, M. & Polin, L. (2004). Common ground and critical differences in designing technical environments. In S. Barab R., Kling & J. Gray (Eds.) (pp.16-22).