0229590_C6FC0_solomon_negash_michael_e_whitman_amy_b_woszczynski_handbook

beutilizedforapproachestodiagnostic,formative, and summative assessment.

There are a variety of ways to differentiate products according to a student’s readiness, interest, and learning profile. As you think about differentiatingcontent,process,andproduct,keep in mind that they are interrelated. The list below, adapted from Tomlinson (1999) suggests some ways that you can differentiate products.

•Tiered product assignments

•Independent study

•Multiple intelligence-based products

•Complex instruction

•Group investigation

•Rangeofmediaorformatstoexpressstudents’ knowledge, understanding, and skill

•Visual, auditory, and kinesthetic product options

Products can take many forms. In fact, it is the flexibility of products that make them so potentially powerful in classrooms sensitive to learner variance. If, as a student, I can show the teacher that I have come to know, understand, and do the nonnegotiables of the unit, how I do so may be open. Tests are certainly one form of product. Nonetheless, when tests are the only form of student product, many students find that their ability to show what they know is restricted. With tests, it is important to remember that the goal should not be regurgitation of information, but rather, demonstration of the capacity to use knowledge and skills appropriately. It is also important to remember that tests should enable rather than impede a student’s ability to show how much the student has learned. Thus, some students may need to provide an audio response to a test, or may need additional time. The table above illustrates just a few ways in which you can differentiate products in response to student readiness, interest, and learning profile.

how do you differentiate Process?

Process is the “how” of teaching. Process refers to the activities that are designed to help students think about and make sense of the key principles and information of the content they are learning. In an online environment, process plays a critical role in differentiating to meet the needs of the students.

Tomlinson (1999) defined process as “the activities designed to ensure that students use key skills to make sense out of essential ideas and information. It is the method in which students acquire the skills” (p. 11). The line between process and content is a blurred one. “When students encounter new ideas or information, they need time to run the input through their own filters of meaning. As they try to analyze, apply, question, or solve a problem using the material, they have to make sense of it before it becomes ‘theirs.’ This processing or sense-making is an essential component of instruction because without it, students either lose the ideas or confuse them”

(Tomlinson, 1995, p. 53). Think of process as how students gain an understanding of the main idea(s) of the unit (i.e., the activities used).

Any effective activity is essentially a sensemaking process, designed to help a student progress from a current point of understanding. Students process and make sense of ideas and information most easily when their classroom activities:

•Have a clear purpose

•Focus on a few key ideas

•Guide them in understanding the ideas and the relationships among them

•Offer opportunities to explore ideas through varied modes/intelligences (e.g., visual, kinesthetic, auditory, spatial, and musical)

•Help them relate new information to previous understandings

•Match their level of readiness (Tomlinson 1995)

There are a variety of ways to differentiate process according to a student’s readiness, interest, and learning profile. As you think about differentiating content, process, and product, keep in mind that they are interrelated. Teachers must select instructional strategies that support responsive teaching, that is, strategies that lend themselves to addressing readiness, interest, and learningprofile.Havingaccesstoavarietyofapproaches to teaching and learning gives teachers the agility to reach out to all students and give themtimetoprocesstheinformation.Itwillnearly alwaysbethecasethatsomestudentsprefercertain instructional approaches over others.

Thelistbelow,adaptedfromTomlinson(1999), suggests some ways that you can differentiate process:

•Varied questioning

•Tiered activities

•Multiple intelligences assignments/activities

•Graphic organizers

•Simulations or real world scenarios

•Learning logs

•Flexible grouping

•Independent projects/study/field work

•Choice boards

•Journals

•Role-playing

•Agendas

•Task cards

•Tic-Tac-Toe

•Discussions/Chats

•Varying amount of support

Instructors should consider a diverse set of instructional strategies when teaching online so thattheycanmosteffectivelymeettheneedsofthe students they serve. A few instructional strategies for online teaching are elaborated on below.

Questioning

Questioning provides an opportunity to engage in ongoing assessment throughout the semester; it allows an instructor to ask a variety of questions in terms of complexity, so that one can address the diverse needs in the class and meet students wheretheyare.Questioningcanoccurinthreaded discussions, via e-mails (text and voice), assignments, projects, and real world problem-based scenarios. Questioning is at the heart of classroom practice. In fact, research in classroom behavior indicates that cueing and questioning might account for as much as 80% of what occurs in a given classroom on a given day (Marzano, Pickering, & Pollock, 2001). Also, providing students with an opportunity to not only answer questions, but to ask them as well, helps learners to become selfreflective and goal-oriented.

Discussion

The discussion method is the most popular pedagogical technique used in the online classroom. It is important to understand how to design and maintain an online discussion. When a variety of higher-order questions are used to initiate discussion, and probing follow-up questions are employed, the discussion method can provide a forum to enhance constructive thinking. Learners can be exposed to multiple perspectives and view issues from the perspective of others. Students may be forced to examine the assumptions which underlie their values, beliefs, and actions

(Brookfield, 1991). Unstructured problems and the complex and ambiguous nature of many topics can be examined. In a constructivist learning environment, the instructor always needs to keep in mind that when facilitating online discussion, asking the right questions is almost always more important than giving the right answers.

Grouping Strategies

Cooperative learning falls under a general category of “grouping strategies.” According to JohnsonandJohnson(1999),therearefivedefining elements of cooperative learning:

•“Positive Interdependence”: A sense of

“sink or swim together”

•Face-to-face (or computer-to-computer in an online environment) promotive interaction: Helping each other learn, applauding success and efforts.

•Individual and group accountability:

Each of us has to contribute to the group achieving its goals

•Interpersonal and small group skills:

Communication, trust, leadership, decision making, and conflict resolution

•Group processing: Reflectingonhowwell the team is functioning and how to function even better. (Marzano et al. 2001)

Presentations

This approach has been utilized in the traditional and online classroom. In an online class, taking time to create a narrated PowerPoint provides students with a visual and auditory presentation. It gives the instructor an opportunity to highlight main ideas and stress important points.

Real World Scenarios

Real life scenarios are an essential learning tool. Throughout a course, taking time to pose real world scenarios as they relate to the course content allows students the opportunity to blend theory with practice and also bring their personal experiences into play.

Field Work

Field work provides students with an opportunity to integrate theory with practice in a meaning-

ful way in a real world setting. It also provides students with an opportunity to engage in diverse field settings and work on assignments that offer some student choice.

Chats

Online conversations take place in real time in chat rooms. The chat allows the users to interact with each other via a text-based chat (Blackboard, 2005).Whenauserpostsamessagetoachatroom, every other user who is viewing the chat room sees the message and can respond immediately. Participating in a chat room is like participating in a face-to-face group discussion.

conclusion

When thinking about how to differentiate in an online environment, always start with your instructional goals and outcomes. What is it that you want your students to learn? What are the knowledge, skills, and dispositions? How is this related to standards? Once you have established goals and outcomes, you must determine acceptable evidence of student learning. Then, decisions for differentiation should be based on the focus of instruction. Consider and determine whether you are differentiating content, process, product, or all three. Also, determine whether the focus of the differentiation is readiness, interest, and/or learningprofile.Theprinciplesofdifferentiation should be kept in mind throughout the process.

The information in this chapter has provided the reader with details related to the theory and research that supports differentiation and how this may look in an online setting. Fostering successful online learning communities to meet the diverse needs of university or K-12 students is a challenging task. Since the “one size fits all” approach is not realistic in a face-to-face or online setting, it is essential as an instructor to take time to understand differentiation and work to create an online learning environment that responds

to the diverse needs of learners. Implications for standards for effective online teaching are important and need to be part of this process. Educational leaders must consider how to make differentiated instruction an integral part of the online environment. This requires staff development and ongoing support. As educators, it is our responsibility to ensure that the teaching and learning processes which take place online are as empowering and comprehensive as they are accessible (Zhu et al. 2003).

needofappropriatestaffdevelopment.What are the most effective training, mentoring, and support systems for online teachers?

3.Without clear standards for quality online teaching embraced by an educational system, instructors may believe that making occasional minor modifications from the face-to-face setting to an online setting is adequate. Should online professional development be required for the preparation and credentialing of online teachers?

futuRe ReseaRch diRections

As many universities and K-12 schools move toward serving a broad range of students in an online setting, it is important to assist instructors in developing classrooms responsive to the needs of academically diverse learners they will serve. Understanding what can facilitate appropriately differentiated instruction in an online setting is essential for instructors so that they can create learningcommunitiestoaddressthediverseneeds of learners. If a university or K-12 school system is to establish online classrooms in which instructors can effectively address needs of academically diverse learners, intensive and sustained staff development will be required. A focus on standards for quality online teaching will be of the essence. One of the National Education Technology Plan action goals for improving the use of educational technology is to “support e-learning” and one of the strategies within this goal is to “enable every teacher to participate ine-learningtraining”(U.S.

DepartmentofEducation,2005,pp.41-42).Useful insights which merit further study include:

1.What are the characteristics of successful K-12 and university online teachers?

2.Instructors transitioning fromaface-to-face classroom setting to online teaching do not automaticallyknowhowtoaddressacademic diversity in this setting and therefore are in

RefeRences

Armstrong, T. (2000). Multiple intelligences in the classroom. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Benjamin, A. (2005). Differentiated instruction using technology. Larchmont, NY: Eye on Education.

Blackboard academic suite – instructor manual.

(2005). Blackboard Inc.

Brookfield,S.D.(1991).Discussion.InM.W.Galbraith(Ed.),Adultlearningmethods(pp. 187-204). Malabar, FL: Krieger Publishing Company.

Dunn, K., & Dunn, R. (1987). Dispelling outmodedbeliefsaboutstudentlearning.Educational Leadership, 44, 6.

Fisher, C., Berliner, D., Filby, N., Marliave, R., Cahen, L., & Dishaw, M. (1980). Teaching behaviors, academiclearningtime,andstudentachievement: An overview. In C. Denham & A. Lieberman (Eds.), Time to learn (pp. 7-32). Washington, DC: National Institutes of Education.

Gardner, H. (1991). The unschooled mind: How children think and how schools should teach.

New York: Basic Books.

Gregory,G.,&Chapman,C.(2002).Differentiated instructional strategies – one size doesn’t fit all. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Hartman, J. (2004). The horizontal university: E-learning as a catalyst for organizational transformation.

Jensen, E. (1998). Teaching with the brain in mind. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.

Jensen, E. (2000). Different brains, different learners. San Diego: The Brain Store. Retrieved February 9, 2008, from www.thebrainstore.com

Johnson, T. & Johnson, R. (1999). Learning together and alone: Cooperative, competitive and individualistic learning. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Jung, Carl (1923). Psychological types (H.G. Baynes, Trans.). New York: Harcourt, Brace & Co.

Langa, M. & Yost, J. (2007). Curriculum mapping for differentiated instruction. Corwin Press: Sage Publications. Thousand Oaks, CA.

Marzano, R. (1992). A different kind of classroom: Teaching with dimensions of learning. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Marzano, R., Pickering, D., & Pollock, J. (2001).

Classroom instruction that works: Researchbased strategies for increasing student achievement. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

McTighe,J.&Wiggins,G.(2004). Understanding by design professional development workbook. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Myers, I. (1985). Manual: The Myer-Briggs Type Indicator. Palo Alto, Ca: Consulting Psychologist Press.

National Research Council (1999). How people learn:Brain,mind,experience,andschool.Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

Northey, S. (2005). Handbook on differentiated instruction for middle and high schools. Larchmont, NY: Eye on Education.

Rohfeld, R. W., & Hiemstra, R. (1995). Moderating discussions in the electronic classroom. In Z. Berge & M. Collins (Eds.), Computer mediated communication and the online classroom (Vol. 3): Distance learning (pp. 91-104). Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.

Silver, H., Hanson, J., Strong, R., & Schwartz, P. (2003)Teachingstylesandstrategies.Ho-Ho-Kus, NJ: Thoughtful Education Press.

Silver, H.F., Strong, R.W., & Perini, M.J. (2000).

So each may learn: Integrating learning styles and multiple intelligences. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Sonwalkar, N. (2003). Logging in with Nishikant Sonwalkar: Online education must capitalize on students’ unique approaches to learning. Chronicle of Higher Education – Distance Education.

Sousa, D. (2003). How the gifted brain learns. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press Incorporated.

Tomlinson, C. A. (1995). How to differentiate instruction in mixed ability classrooms. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.

Tomlinson, C. A. (1999). The differentiated classroom: Responding to the needs of all learners. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.

Tomlinson, C. A. (2000). Leadership for differentiating schools and classrooms. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.

Tomlinson, C. A., & McTighe, J. (2006). Integrating differentiated instruction and understanding by design. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.

U.S. Department of Education. (2005). Toward a new golden age in American education: How

the Internet, the law and today’s students are revolutionizing expectations. National Education Technology Plan 2004. Retrieved February

9, 2008, from www.ed.gov/about/offices/list/os/ technology/plan/2004/index.html

Winograd, D. A medium for collaborative learning. Retrieved February 9, 2008, from www. Emoderators.com

Zhu, E., Payette, P., & DeZure, D. (2003). An introduction to teaching online (CRLT Occasional Papers No. 18). University of Michigan.

additional Reading

ALN Web Center. (2000). Web center: Learning networks effectiveness research. Retrieved February 9, 2008, from http://www.alnresearch. org/index.jsp

Blomeyer, R. L. (2006).Professional development for effective teaching and online learning. Virtual school report, Connections Academy. Retrieved February 9, 2008, from www.connectionsacademy.com/pdfs/VirtualNewsSpring2006.pdf

Bourne,J.,&Moore,J.(2004).Elementsofquality online education (Vol. 5).

Braidic, S. (2007, October-December). I.Q. – I question: Teacher and student questioning in an online environment. International Journal of Information and Communication Technology Education (IJICTE), 3(4).

Carbonara, D. (Ed.). (2005). Technology literacy applications in learning environments. Hershey, PA: IGI Global, Inc.

Cavanaugh, C., Gillian, K., Kromey, J., Hess, M., & Blomeyer, R. (October, 2004). The effects of distance education on K-12 student outcomes: A meta-analysis. Learning point associates.

Retrieved February 9, 2008 from www.ncrel. org/tech/distance/k12distance.pdf

Clark,J.,&DiMartino,J.(April,2004).Apersonal prescription for engagement. Principal Leadership, 4(8), 19-23.

Davidson, K., & Decker, T. (2006). Bloom’s and beyond. Marion, IL: Pieces of Learning Publishing.

Dede, C., Korte, S., Nelson, R., Valdez, G., & Ward, D. (September, 2005). Transforming learning for the 21st century: An economic imperative.

Naperville, IL: Learning Point Associates.

Garrison, D., & Anderson, T. (2003). E-learning in the 21st century. London: Routledge.

Gold, S. (May, 2001). A constructivist approach to online training for online teachers. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 5(1).

Lorenzo, G., & Moore, J. (Ed.). (2002). The Sloan consortium report to the nation: Five pillars of quality online education. Sloan-C.

Moore, J. (Ed.). (2005). The Sloan consortium quality framework and the five pillars. Sloan-C.

Muelinburg, L., & Berge, Z. (2000). The moderators’ homepage: A framework for designing questionsforonlinelearning. Retrieved February 9, 2008, from http://www.emoderators.com/moderators/muilenburg.html

O’Neil, H. (February 2003). What works in distance learning? University of Southern California/CRESST. Retrieved February 9, 2008, from www.adlnet.gov/downloads/124.cfm

Rockwell, S. K., Schauer, J., Fritz, S. M., & Marx, D. B. (2000, Summer). Faculty education, assistance, and support needed to deliver education via distance. Online Journal of Distance Education Administration, 3(2).

Smith, R., Clark, T., & Blomeyer, R. (November, 2005). A synthesis of new research on K-12 online learning. Naperville, IL: Learning Point Associates.RetrievedFebruary9,2008,fromwww.ncrel. org/tech/synthesis/synthesis.pdf

Southern Region Education Board. (2003, April).

Essentialprinciplesofhigh-qualityonlineteach- ing. Atlanta: Author. Retrieved February 9, 2008, from www.sreb.org

Southern Region Education Board. (2005, July).

Technical guidelines for digital learning content.

Atlanta:Author.RetrievedFebruary9,2008,from www.sreb.org

Southern Region Education Board. (2006a, August). Standards for quality online teaching.

Atlanta: Author. Retrieved February 9, 2008, from www.sreb.org

Southern Region Education Board. (2006b, November). Standards for quality online courses.

Atlanta: Author. Retrieved February 9, 2008, from www.sreb.org

Sprague, D., & Dede, C. (1999, September). Constructivism in the classroom: If I teach this way, am I doing my job? Learning and Leading with Technology, 27(1), 6-9, 16-17.

U.S. Department of Education. (2005). Toward a new golden age in American education: How the Internet, the law and today’s students are revolutionizing expectations. National Education Technology Plan 2004. Retrieved February

9, 2008, from www.ed.gov/about/offices/list/os/ technology/plan/2004/index.html

U.S. Department of Education, Office of Postsecondary Education. (2006, March). Evidence ofqualityindistanceeducationprogramsdrawn frominterviewswiththeaccreditationcommunity.

RetrievedFebruary9,2008fromwww.itcnetwork. org/Accreditation-EvidenceofQualityinDEPro- grams.pdf

United States Distance Learning Association. (2006). Distance learning for educators, trainers, and leaders. United States Distance Learning Association Journal 3(1).

What works in distance learning? (2003). Retrieved February 9, 2008, from http://fusion. jointadlcolab.org/wwindl/

oveRview

Distance education (DE) is a popular delivery modality in view of the cost effectiveness and operationalefficienciesitbringstocoursedelivery

(Allen, Mabry, Mattrey, Bourhis, Titsworth, & Burrell, 2004). This is one reason that prompts

administrators to learn more about the economic efficiency of various DE alternatives, such as teleconferencing, computer-mediated delivery, and hybrid mixtures of models (Chang, 2004). TheuseofWeb-basedtechnologiestobothsupple- ment and replace traditional lecture courses has become the popular solution from the administra-

tive perspective (Berger & Topol, 2001; Casini & Vincino, 2003) and some say that Web-based asynchronous instruction is now the leading DE delivery mode (Chang, 2004). Even so, it appears that asynchronous learning approaches that include no lecture sessions are not as successful as initially expected (Ginsberg & Foster, 1998; Hara, 1998; Johnson, 2000; Wilkes, Simon, & Brooks, 2006). The question is: What are the key benefits of teleconference-based distance learning as opposed to the strictly computer-based asynchronous approaches?

To help answer this question, three specific studies concerning teleconference-based DE are reported and reviewed here to clarify the nature of student motivations and responses to teleconferencing and technology-mediated support in DE courses, providing an empirical basis for discussing critical considerations in the choice to expand live instruction course delivery with teleconference extension and with Web-based course supplements. Each of these studies was conducted independently, but the same introductory information systems course was used for all three studies.

One empirical perspective develops the concept of media uses and gratifications for distance education, particularly demonstrating the role of social motivations for engaging in teleconferenced DE courses. Another perspective examines converged Web and teleconference technologies in the development of multisection distance education course offerings. This draws upon work of Newcomer and Stafford (2001) on dual-classroom pedagogy, as adapted in Stafford and Simon’s (2002) innovative instruction study, and is developed here as a case-based demonstration of the “high-technology adjunct” approach to DE. The empirical discussion concludes with the report of a study that examines differential motivations of teleconferencing students at geographicallydispersedsites,usingInternetprotocol (IP) teleconferencing. As these three exploratory studies are compared, some common understand-

ings begin to appear. The chapter is organized in the following manner. First, theoretical perspectives concerning student motivations in DE are discussed. Then the results of three exploratory studies are presented. The first study deals with social gratifications for teleconferenced courses, the second study discusses a new technologyenabled educational opportunity called “the high-tech adjunct,” and the final study examines student preferences for distant and local teleconference sections. Following those three studies, a summary and conclusions are provided.

theoRetical PeRsPectives

Asynchronous Web-based delivery of lectures is popular with administrators due to cost considerations, but for students, the lack of live interaction with instructors in strictly asynchronous courses is challenging when frequent clarifications or elaborations on course material are required, as frequently may be experienced in technical courses (Flowers, Pascarella, & Pierson, 2000; Gloster & Doss, 2000). Even so, there is a case to bemadefor promoting the use of teleconferencing technologyintheclassroom,giventhebeneficial influences of hands-on experience in preparing studentsforfuturehigh-techcareers(Alavi,1994). Yet, when considering all technologically-medi- atedapproachestocoursedelivery,studentsmight not accept Web-mediated asynchronous courses as comparable substitutes to live instruction, and one typically sees higher dropout rates and lower retention rates in asynchronous Web-based classes than in traditional lecture-format classes (Brewer, 2004).

Live interaction instruction makes important contributions to the education process (Abler &

Wells, 2005). These benefits come in the form of social presence in technology-mediated courses, reducing alienation, and providing participants with the sense and benefits of a traditional classroom or seminar room (He, Zhang, & Cheng,

2004). In other words, the presence of live instruction, even if it is technologically-delivered, as in the case of a teleconference of a live course, provides an increased social quality of the course interaction which can help students overcome frustrations they may feel when not able to directly interact with instructors and classmates, as would be the case in most asynchronous courses (Hara, 1998).

Internet technology serves increasingly important support roles in DE, but computers will never totally substitute for the learning experience students receive from an instructor (Stafford, 2005), nor are Web-based offerings ever completely satisfactory to students (Hara, 1998). Videoconferencing of classes can overcome the clear social limitations of computer instructed course offerings (Abler & Wells, 2005), since part of the live interaction experience involves important information from social cues (Stiefelhagen, Chen, & Yang, 2005). IP teleconferencing providesforthestudent-teacherinteractionaswell as the enhanced learning outcomes available with hyperlinked multimedia.

This chapter covers motivational aspects of student involvement in technologically-mediated education,specificallyexaminingteleconferenced

DE. Three aspects of student involvement and technological support for course delivery are discussed, each of which possesses differing theoretical underpinnings:

1.Inthefirstsection,basicInternet-basedmo- tivations related to motivations for engaging in IP teleconferencing as a course delivery mode are examined. Here, media-usetheory is adapted and developed into a framework thatwerefertoastheusesandgratifications perspective.

2.In the second section, the consideration of Web-mediated course support as a technological adjunct is introduced, applying the principles of media richness theory to the educational setting to enhance students’ achievement of the educational task.

3.And in the third section, the principles of transactional distance theory are applied to find distinctions between student motivations for teleconference origin course sections and distant receiving sections.

social gRatifications foR teleconfeRenced couRses

The use of technology in education has not always been as successful as envisioned (Ginsberg

&Foster, 1998; Johnson, 2000), nor has it been as widely adopted for classroom use as initially expected (Miller, Martineau, & Clark, 2000). Part of the problem lies in an incomplete understanding of the value that technology students find in the information technology used in conjunction with training and education (Stafford, 2005). Teleconference-based DE technologies have not always met with great approval from students, but Web-based technologies used to supplement standardteleconferencingtechniquescanincrease studentsatisfaction (Berger & Topol,2001;Casini

&Vincino, 2003). The problem with understanding how best to integrate Internet support for DE offerings is compounded by the general lack of research on the nature of student motivations to utilize classroom technology (Stöttinger & Schlegelmilch, 2002).

This section of the chapter examines student motivations for technology use associated with educational teleconferencing by applying the uses and gratifications perspective (U&G) from media-use theory. U&G is a research tradition from mass communications used to understand motivations for the use of emerging media in the early days of radio and television (Herzog, 1944; Katz, 1950; Klapper, 1963), and more recently as regards the Internet (Eighmey & McCord, 1998; Stafford, 2000, 2005). In an extension of the U&G approach, here we examine the use of information resources in the classroom from a media-centric Internet model related to IP teleconferencing combined with Web site support.