Critique+of+the+Three+collaborative+Activities


 * Critique/Appraisal**

The use of Second Life within the module is not part of the assessed activities – rather it gives the module participants an opportunity to explore the possibilities offered by the platform, and to engage with fellow class members and academic staff on virtual field trips. Support and interaction is also offered via the discussion boards (including a ‘Second mid-Life Crisis’ forum, which did not appear to be available during the module).
 * 3.Second Life Activities**

The fact that students' learning takes place by exploring Second Life, rather than merely reading about it, offers them the chance to undertake the ‘experiential learning’ discussed earlier. An element, which would perhaps have extended this, would have been the opportunity to create content within Second Life – this could also have extended the opportunity for collaboration. Arguably though it would be unrealistic to include this in a relatively brief introduction to the area (particularly when it is an optional element). It should be noted, however, that participants are able, if they wish, to create content as part of their projects.

There is a link between this activity and learning outcome 4, which states: //During the design or appraisal of new or existing courses, critically consider the complex student support issues that arise in blended and online learning.// Students who engage with Second Life as part of this module will be aware of many of the issues which can potentially arise from its inclusion in their own provision (such as the technical skill required). The opportunity to discuss and reflect on this (via an assessed discussion in the forums) would perhaps have allowed students greater opportunity to critically consider the inclusion of Second Life in their own projects.

That students are able to use Second Life as part of their projects means that the use of the virtual worlds can be seen as part of the ‘extend’ element of Smyth’s 3E Framework, as it can be seen to:

“…offer new opportunities for learning or to extend classroom activities in ways that provide more choice and control in what, when and how students learn.” (Smyth, 2007: p2)

In addition, the fact that students can choose to incorporate Second Life into their own activities could also be seen as an example of the empower element of Smyth’s 3E Framework (as they are empowered to use the technology, should they wish to do so). But could potentially empower more by supporting students in ‘engaging in online professional communities’ through Second life.

**4. Student Led Seminars** The student led seminars offered another opportunity for 'experiential learning', when two or more participants were given the opportunity to design and run an online seminar for a small group of students and their tutors on the course to take part in over a two week period. Each seminar reflected an interest of those leading the seminars, e.g. retention. The seminars also allowed students a choice as to what technology they used to run the seminar, be it a wiki or a WebCT environment, etc. The seminars were assessed both by the participants themselves and by their peers. The student based seminars were activities designed to allow students on SBOSE to demonstrate two learning outcomes while collaborating, LO2 and LO4. In terms of LO2 the students had to: //Analyse, apply and reflect upon online facilitation skills that prompt student engagement, promote understanding, and demonstrate sensitivity to individual needs//. In addition the student based seminars also supported the demonstration of LO4: //During the design or appraisal of new or existing courses, critically consider the complex student support issues that arise in blended and online learning//.

These activities, therefore, demonstrated quiet clearly Bigg’s constructive alignment, as we can identify the student led seminar activities aligning clearly to the learning outcomes. When looking at the 3E framework, it can be argued that this activity also offered an opportunity to empower students in terms of control ( offering a high degree of student participation) and opportunities for collaboration. While this objective was also achieved successfully through the learning activity, this aspect, could have been even further supported by offering additional opportunities for collaboration around the peer/self assessment. By adapting the assessment process slightly, to allow the students an opportunity to reflect and discuss with each other in Elluminate their individual ratings of the online seminars, this would have supported further the sharing of knowledge of pedagogy in "authentic ways". In addition, it would have been useful for those running the student led seminars to have discussed in Elluminate what marks they felt they should receive and provide justifications for this. This empowering opportunity would build further on the idea of peers learning together. It would also have ensured that learners were learning as actively as possible.

**5. Discussion Boards** The Discussion boards were used in the student led seminars, for group project work, and for student problems on WebCT. In the module descriptor it is highlighted that "//participation in asynchronous discussion is required throughout and is assessed//". The constructive alignment approach to learning outcomes demands that the student learn skills for seeking out the required knowledge as the changing situation demands. The approach facilitates active student engagement in authentic learning activities that are designed to achieve desired learning outcomes and assessed in terms of what students can do, rather than the ‘declarative knowledge’ or knowing about something they can recite or write (Biggs, 2003). The discussion boards for this module encouraged each student to contribute to each discussion, and the group used the following bullets to evaluate the usefulness of the discussion boards. According to Northover (2002) there are a number of aspects that contribute to the usefulness of discussion boards to students: • Value – make the discussion as inherently valuable to the students' purpose (ie meeting learning outcomes) as possible. Since all of the students contributed to the discussion boards (on more than one occasion) suggests that students valued these discussions, and arguably could appreciate that learning outcomes were met; • Challenge – a discussion that becomes boring or predictable will cease to be of interest. As above, engagement was continuous for the boards throughout their use; • Non-threatening – the discussion environment must be a 'safe' one. There were a variety of discussion topics, with a variety of opinions and points made, suggesting that students felt safe to discuss points; • Feedback – students must have confirmation from the tutor that they are 'on the right track. There was good engagement with the tutors, often suggesting other areas to expand and/or deepen the students' learning'; • Encouragement – most students will respond better with an actively encouraging environment. The tutor has a prime responsibility here, but this will often also come from fellow students. Students responded to other students' postings as well as tutors. • Authentic – realistic and meaningful tasks increase the value to the students; building knowledge which is practical, contextualised and relevant. Students talked about the practical application, suggesting the meaningfulness of the tasks set.

A discussion board activity will have greater impact and worth if it can encourage a deeper level of learning and understanding. Northiver (2002) suggests that "a discussion that consists of a single activity only – discussing or debating a single concept – may have a limited impact. If the activity can build through two or three parts of the discussion, it can lead to a more purposeful outcome..." Since the discussion topics were related to the module content and other discussion, we would suggest encourages reflective and/or experiential learning, which encouraged students to participate in the accumulated participation and learning of the group. Perhaps this could also be explained as extending and/or empowering students as described by the 3E Framework - it extended what, when and how students on the module learned, and also gives students choice on what they would like to discuss (within the context of the discussion set) and whether they wanted to add more than one posting. So while we can identify that the discussion boards did extend and empower under the 3E framework, and did build a sense of community and shared identify for the students. There could have been an additional adaption to increase alignment in terms of the LTA. This was because only the seminar leaders were assessed on their participation on the boards and while other students were indirectly (e.g. they would not receive their peer review mark if they did not take part in the other student led seminars) their could be greater alignment by, for instance, with some marks being given to participation of all students on the boards throughout the student seminars. This would also hopefully encourage even greater engagement by the students. home