1. Brenda I. López Ortiz Assistant Professor of Educational Technology Queens, NY

2. Introduction Learning AuthenticInquiryCollaboration Solve Problems (Jonassen, Howland, Marra & Crismond, 2007)

3. Introduction Accountability Benefits Collaboration (Johnson & Johnson, 2007; Partnership for 21st Century Skills, 2007)

4. Literature Review Problem- Based Learning CollaborationAuthenticInquiry Embedded Assessment Group Processing (Barrows & Tamblyn, 1980; Faidley, et al., 2000; Hung, Jonassen, & Liu, 2007; Savery, 2006)

5. Literature Review Predictor of pedagogical excellence Collaboration Mediated Communication Archive Online PBL (Barrows, 2002; Bernard, et al., 2004; Johnson & Johnson, 2007)

6. Literature Review How to design the collaborative experience? to take advantage of archival features to establish individual accountability to help alleviate student concerns to encourage learning meaningful

7. Context Course Audience Introduction to Instructional Technology Standards NYS Standards for Teachers Managing instruction including instructional technology Designing & implementing assessment National Educational Technology Standards for Teachers All 5 Undergraduates Programs of childhood and adolescent education Mostly females Limited experience with online learning Wide range of technology skills Social networking Email Surfing the web

8. Context Content Technology in society and the workplace Ethical, legal and human issues Computer hardware Software Educational Application WWW/Internet Assessment

9. Instructional Methods Subject MatterGrade LevelTopicJustification Subject Matter & Technology Standards Objectives Learning Activities Assessment The Problem Curriculum Unit

10. Instructional Methods Technology Requirements Assessment Requirements 1 Educational Software 1 Application Software 3 WWW/Internet Resources Collection?Recording?Analysis?Communication?

11. Instructional Methods Group Formation Inquiry Formative Evaluation Solution Peer Review Reflection The Process

12. The Model Draft Group Ideas Individual Ideas Weekly Activities Draft Submission Inquiry

13. The Model Individual Ideas First Message Technology Name and version or URL Screen shot Benefits for teaching and learning What technology standards? What learning activity? Follow up Message(s) Whose idea is more compatible or better expressed, or more feasible, etc.?

14. The Model Conflicting Ideas Formative Assessment Only Summative Assessment Only Multiple Ideas Formative Assessment Summative Assessment Multiple Versions of Same Ideas Formative Assessment towards the beginning Formative Assessment before the end Group Ideas

15. The Model – Write-Up Who will write the draft? By which date?

16. The Model First Message timeliness, completeness, quality Follow-up Message timeliness, completeness, quality Write-up timeliness, completeness, quality Establishing Individual Accountability

17. The Model Criteria RatingsScoreMax Comments AbsentPoor ↔ GoodGood but LateExcellent0100 Week 2 :: Introduction to Computer Technology You did not post any messages. (0 points) You did not meet the requirement of minimum number of messages for this week, your messages did not fulfill the content requirements and/or the content requirements were met with inaccurate information. (1-8 points) You met the requirement of minimum number of messages for this week and your messages fulfilled the content requirements accurately. However, one or more messages were posted late. (9 points) You met the requirement of minimum number of messages for this week and your messages fulfilled the content requirements accurately and timely. (10 points) 10 Assessing Individual Contribution

18. Considerations The course topics can be integrated into a cohesive whole Weekly activities can elicit divergent contributions The process is as valuable as the product Small groups interactions replace whole-class interactions Student awareness Normal online communication delays Higher need for group coordination Flexibility in grading Instructor work load

19. Research Agenda & Conclusions Unlike PBL Like Online Learning Structure of the process Need for more structure (Barrows & Tamblyn, 1980; Swan, 2003)

20. Research Agenda & Conclusions Purposes Methods Feasibility and value of this model Taking full advantage of PBL for online learning Participants Same type of students Data Collection Surveys and analysis of online documents Analysis Constant comparison (documents) Descriptive statistics (survey)

21. Research Agenda & Conclusions Preliminary findings Useful for making individual responsibilities explicit First-hand appraisal of accountability Group mates’ accounts may be Biased Based on unrealistic or unshared expectations Archived evidence of the quality, completeness and timeliness

22. Brenda I. López Ortiz lopezorb@stjohns.edu St. John’s University Queens, NY