This presentation explains how one instructor developed an approach to the ongoing integration of digital communications within online courses – using a cycle of testing, implementation, evaluation, and dissemination. Examples are shown from YouTube, wikis, badging, and virtual reality. Questions are posed for instructors considering such tools in their courses. A list of the author’s publications are included.

1. Eileen O’Connor, Ph.D.
Eileen.oconnor@esc.edu
March 2013

2.  Review of instructor course evolution, with
increasing digital literacies –
 The goal—to improve science-teacher education,
especially online; to build communities of learners
 A cycle with integration, testing, evaluation,
improvement & dissemination – ongoing &
generative
 Several focusing themes:
 Needing to map to the emerging world and live of
digital natives; ultimate K12 learners
 Expanding digital-literacy science teaching – and
assessing via video
 Helping adult learners in changing times – addressing
uncertainty . . . and making quality, open work
 Highlighting – YouTube / Wikis / Badging / Virtual

3. Explore new
technology -
• Ie. YouTube; digital
probes
Disseminate Integrate into
• Conferences & online or f2f
publications • Align w/ course
• Slideshare – hist. objectives
Digital ethnography NOTE: community
• Holistic study of the building is an
course
• IRB - process
objective

4. Online can be more than simply text &
discussion boards
Visual learning; dual coding theories; multiple
intelligences; multi-lingual; information processing
(brain based); 21st century skills

5.  To close the gap-move beyond writing
proxies (aka lesson plans) in science teacher
education
 Students were required to demonstrate a
tech-in-science use related to their lessons
and to share with class
 Instructor could review equipment,
presentation style, and competency . . . in
addition to written planning documentation
 Colleagues – learned from and about their
peers

9. Value to using YouTube, in general
Easily • Accessible to most students
• Useful especially with online; improves student &
implemented teacher communication
“Performance” • Many facets can be studied
• Richer assessments possible since live materials can
can now be be readily reviewed
observed • Data can be saved, stored, compared over time
New ways of
• New questions arise about what is evidence of
teaching & learning in the content area
learning emerge

10.  Instruction?
 Sharing?
 The―technology‖ is easy – but how do you
direct and assess a performance?

11. HOW CAN “WORKING
TOWARDS PUBLIC
SHARING” IMPROVE
TEACHING &
LEARNING?
Teams developed support wikis / votes on
what to go public . . . and why
Communities of practice; situated
learning; Vygotsky & social aspects of
learning; 21st century skills

12. The assignment
Plan & create
wiki w/ team process
Final vote of Anonymous peer
publication ready assessment
Some made Instructor
revisions evaluation
Peer comments
circulated

13. Instructor Evaluation of wiki
Team 1 Team 2 Team 3 Team 4
Coverage & Well covered Adequate Well covered Well covered
quality coverage
K12 applications Well explained Poorly explained; Well explained Well explained
or background background info little info about
info K12
Formatting (not Excellent: Fair: multiple Good: multiple Poor: one long
an evaluation multiple pages; pages; images pages; images page; infrequent
criteria) images used well; used though used well use of images
internal links some were too
large
Grade given 98% 82% 94% 94%
Students’ comments:
Team 1 Team 2 Team 3 Team 4
Clarity & quality 4.4 out of 5 3.9 out of 5 4.5 out of 5 3.8 out of 5
Usefulness 4.5 out of 5 4.5 out of 5 4.8 out of 5 4.2 out of 5
% think public 85% 62% 92% 69%
ready

14. Students comment on team work
– some have misgivings
% (#)
The team was supportive, in general 77% (10)
Working as a team improved over time 77% (10)
The team provided help with topic 46% (6)
Team provided help with organization of wiki 38% (5)
Would have worked differently alone 31% (4)
Would have worked better if alone 23% (3)
Students who said they were “nervous” about working 23% (3)
in this format
“Everyone has different ideas and are working on different ideas so sometimes
the page seems disjointed or the team is not working at the same pace.”
“At first, I thought working with a team would be a breeze because I would not
have to bear the entire workload and the different perspectives would make the
wiki better. As the assignment wore on I realized the difficulties of working with
team members.”

15. • School endorsement? Ongoing updating?
Web issues Professional presence?
• No longer simply content provider
Instructor • Orchestrating / managing timetable &
process; review liaison
role shifts • Involvement in the thinking/learning process
• How do you evaluate the complexities of a
Valuing / process when the standard is “the paper”?
• Do students and institutions truly value this
assessing type of work?
• Useful content created; a legacy
HOWEVER • Greater involvement & professionalism
• Incorporating & modeling future ways of learning

16. So, how might you use peer-
reviewed wikis/websites to
improve instruction?
 What topics / assignments would you have
students share with the public?
 How would you ensure quality?
 Again, the technologies are the easy part – what do
you want to do and how will you manage & assess?

17. Establishing peer reviews –
with badges – can increase
interest & distributed learning
Motivation theories; Vygotsky & peer support;
distributed learning; 21st century skills

19. Grad course
•Create, model, make
criteria, require, assess
•Elect which stays
Revisions /review Dean award
•in later Grad course •Ensure follow-
up
Badges: ongoing /
generative
•for input, continuity,
and ownership

20.  REAL connections with & support for
science (Cornell; www.globe.gov;
www.nasa.gov)
 Science literacy; science sharing;
extending & creating new knowledge
and understanding; helping other
nations

21.  During an Emerging Technology course
students award badges to Prezi, Facebook,
Websites, YouTubes and such as they are being
created to meet course objectives;
 Models a new approach that these students
might use in their future;
 Adapt and adopt as moving through course
needs and requirements;
 More at SUNY Conference in Instruction &
Technology May 2013

22. -- Encourage reflection around
course criteria?
-- Provide evidence of outside-
the-course accomplishments?
-- Ensure learning from others?

23. Where, how, & why can virtual
realities create more
engagement, ownership,
context, & community?
 With infinite applications (you
design the environment),
immersive learning makes:
◦ distance more “real” Community of practice;
motivation; context &
◦ the impossible, possible visualizations;
simulations; 21st century
◦ caring more apparent skills

24. MAT Science Center – meetings &
presentations
and, meeting the Dean

25. Students across the state
give virtual presentations

26. Posters: presented to the class & to judges
(former students) > votes too

27. Teaching others, across
the state or the world
 Individual support to faculty
members . . . who can now
present their areas of expertise to
your online students

28.  From a development & fun six months with
the Mall of the Universe  to SER/VE (the
project on the next pages)
◦ Students developed a shopping mall economy

29. These middle school students
created sophisticated interiors

31. An animated co-instructor helped
with the weekly requirements –
AKA, DaddyDarren Denver

32. For the final presentations

33. Overall:
 Many ways to develop, create, meet,
and share in virtual reality;
 ESC has had virtual holdings since
2004;
 NOTE: you can tape a virtual meeting
– machinima
How could you and your students meet, share, and
visit? How can seeing an avatar & context make a
distance community more real?

34. In closing
 Digital closes gaps, preserves
interactions, extends across time and
geography, empowers multiple
learning styles;
 Experiment, experiment, experiment
 Assess, assess, assess
 Share, share, share
Please contact me for more info –
eileen.occonnor@esc.edu

35. Selected peer-reviewed publications and a book chapter
O’Connor, E.A. (2013). Next generation online: advancing learning through dynamic design, virtual and web 2.0 technologies, and
instructor attitude. (in press, Journal of Educational Technology Systems).
O’Connor, E. A. (2012). Developing effective online collaborative science projects by using course scaffolding, a virtual world, and
web 2.0 technologies. In Proceeding of Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference 2012 (pp.
2192-2198). Chesapeake, VA: AACE.
Abendroth, M.A., Golzy, J., & O’Connor, E.A. (2012). Self-created YouTube recordings of microteachings: their effects upon
candidates’ readiness for teaching and instructors’ assessment. Journal of Educational Technology Systems. 40(2), 141-
159.O’Connor, E. A. (2012). A survival guide from an early adopter: how Web 2.0 and the right attitude can enable learning and
expansive course design. Journal of Educational Technology Systems. 40(2), 194-209.;
O’Connor, E. (2011). Practical considerations when using virtual spaces for learning and collaboration, with minimal setup and
support. In H. H. Yang, & S. C. Yuen (Eds.), Handbook of Research on Practices and Outcomes in Virtual Worlds and Environment.
Hershey PA: IGI Global.
O'Connor, E. (2011). Migrating Towards K12 in Virtual Spaces: Second Life Lessons Learned as Higher Education Meets Middle
School Students. In Proceedings of Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference 2011 (pp. 2192-
2198). Chesapeake, VA: AACE.
O’Connor, E. A. (2010- 2011) The effect on learning, communication, and assessment when student-created YouTubes of
microteaching were used in an online teacher-education course. Journal of Educational Technology Systems, 39(2), pp. 135-154.
O’Connor, E. (2010). The Use of a Wiki in Teacher Education: How Does Learning and Instruction Change When Work Can Go
Public?. In D. Gibson & B. Dodge (Eds.), Proceedings of Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International
Conference 2010 (pp. 2822-2829). Chesapeake, VA: AACE.
O'Connor, E. A. (2009). Instructional and Design Elements that Support Effective Use of Virtual Worlds: What Graduate Student Work
Reveals about Second Life. Journal of Educational Technology Systems, 38(2), 213-234.
O’Connor, E. A. and Sakshaug, L. (2009) Preparing for Second Life: Two Teacher Educators Reflect on Their Initial Foray into
Virtual Teaching and Learning, Journal of Educational Technology Systems, 37(3), pp. 259-272.
O'Connor, E. (2008). Becoming a Virtual Instructor: How Can Higher Education Faculty Prepare for Second Life?. In G. Richards
(Ed.), Proceedings of World Conference on E-Learning in Corporate, Government, Healthcare, and Higher Education 2008 (pp. 1144-
1149). Chesapeake, VA: AACE;
O'Connor, E. A. (2008). Initial Study of Pre-Service Teachers' Comments on a Reality-Based, Urban-Student Video Streamed within
an Online Course. Journal of Educational Technology Systems, 37(2), 139-157.
Oconnor, E. (2007). Using Reality-Based, Authentic Streamed-Videos and Online Conversations to Prepare Pre-Service Teachers for
Urban Classrooms: A Pilot Study. In T. Bastiaens & S. Carliner (Eds.), Proceedings of World Conference on E-Learning in Corporate,
Government, Healthcare, and Higher Education 2007 (pp. 1179-1184). Chesapeake, VA: AACE.
O'Connor, E. A. (2007). A Case Study of the Approach to Teaching and to Technology of Three New Teachers in an Alternative
Teacher Certification Program. Journal of Educational Technology Systems, 35(3), 357-382.