Student Relationships Emerging in Online Environments

Solve your problems or get new ideas with basic brainstorming

Get Started. It's Free
or sign up with your email address
Rocket clouds
Student Relationships Emerging in Online Environments by Mind Map: Student Relationships Emerging in Online Environments

1. Resources

1.1. Charbonneau-Gowdy, P. & Cechova, I. (2009). Moving from analogue to high definition e-tools to empowering social learning approaches. The Electronic Journal of e-Learning, 7(3), 225-238. Retrieved on January 12, 2013 from http://www.ejel.org.

1.1.1. Goal 1

1.1.2. Goal 2

1.2. Hismanoglu, M. (2011). E-learning practices in North Cyprus universities: Benefits, drawbacks and recommendations for effective implementation. International Education Studies, 4(4), 149-159. Retrieved April 28, 2012, from http://dx.doi.org/10.5539/ies.v4n4p149

1.2.1. Session Rule 1

1.2.2. Session Rule 2

1.3. Rambe, P. (2012). Constructive disruptions for effective collaborative learning: Navigating the affordances of social media for meaningful engagement. The Electronic Journal of e-Learning, 10(1), 132-146. Retrieved on January 12, 2013 from http://www.ejel.org.

1.4. Sundararajan, B., (2009). Impact of communication patterns, network positions and social dynamics factors on learning among students in a CSCL environment. The Electronic Journal of e-Learning, 7(1), 71-84. Retrieved on January 12, 2013 from http://www.ejel.org.

1.5. Tweddell Levinsen, K. (2006). Collaborative on-line teaching: The inevitable path to deep learning and knowledge sharing. The Electronic Journal of e-Learning, 4(1), 41-48. Retrieved on January 12, 2013 from http://www.ejel.org.

1.6. Varvel, Jr., V. (2001). Facilitating every student in an online course. Illinois Online Network, March/April 2001, Retrieved on January 12, 2013 from http://illinois.online.uillinois.edu/.

1.7. Williams, R, Karousou, R. & Mackness, J. (2011). Emergent learning and Learning ecologies in web 2.0. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 12(3), Retrieved on January 12, 2013 from https://mentoringbyglengatin.wikispaces.com/.

2. Position

2.1. Social Interaction

2.1.1. Charbonneau-Gowdy and Cechova (2009) states that throughout the centuries, education has been determined a social interaction of sharing knowledge with others.

2.1.2. Intrinsically, learning has always had a social nature woven deep within the multiple interpersonal facets. Scholars were known to sit in the temples and profess their knowledge of life.

2.1.3. Varvel (2001) states that learners will need to connect with the instructor, fellow students, and other university resource staff for the facilitation of motivation, encouragement and knowledge transfer.

2.1.4. Instructor's Roles

2.1.4.1. Although the instructor’s role has changed, in the online environment, the instructor is perceived as a facilitator of learning.

2.1.4.2. Varvel (2001) suggests that the instructor should initially participate in the discussions to model how the responses should be framed and to break the ice of the interpersonal communication.

2.1.4.3. Tweddell (2006) mentions that facilitators monitor discussions for learner participation, contribution value, and desirable direction.

2.1.4.4. An occasional response from the facilitator has value from the perspective that the discussion is followed and respected for the content.

2.1.4.5. The instructor could also participate in a variety of course activities to promote motivation and encouragement such as create a course orientation, offer a synchronous chat appointment, chunk activities, answer email communication efficiently, and provide an informative wiki or website of resources (Varvel, 2001).

2.1.5. Collaboration

2.1.5.1. Independent knowledge attainment loses something without the possibility of collaboration.

2.1.5.2. Varvel (2001) mentions that discussion forums and blogs could be constructed to create synergy within the group.

2.1.5.3. In education, a layman may use the technology unexpectedly differently than originally stated, and the result will render innovations far greater than imagined (Rambe, 2012).

2.1.5.4. Rambe (2012) states that social media encourages authentic learning engagement and knowledge exchange between learners within a learning community.

3. Confirmation

3.1. Emergent

3.1.1. The definition of emergent goes against forcing compliance and predictability of any kind.

3.1.2. According to Williams, Karousou, and Mackness (2011), the learning will emerge whether anticipated or not.

3.2. A best of both philosophical practices could be a blend of prescriptive learning to utilize the compliance issues such as the validation processes of scientific method and expert peer-review, and the unintentional emergent learning interaction of connectivism to produce something previously unforseen.

4. Concession/Refutation

4.1. Online Platforms

4.1.1. Rambe (2012) states that Copyright Laws complicate the use of social media and Multimedia files in several formats.

4.1.2. Synchronous learning and social networking platforms provides the online course community interactivity that is needed for collaboration of knowledge and connective learning to transpire.

4.2. Traditional Classrooms

4.2.1. The traditional platforms are created and organized to exhibit a sense of control and order (Williams, Karousou, & Mackness, 2011).

4.2.1.1. Prescriptive Learning Theory

4.2.1.1.1. Prescriptive learning has a purpose in the education process to control validation of facts.

4.2.1.1.2. Rules and policies are needed to manage the validity of information.

4.2.1.1.3. Prescriptive learning is peer-reviewed fact-based knowledge prepared, duplicated, and distributed for the masses (Williams, Karousou, & Mackness, 2011).

4.2.2. Hismanoglu (2011) mentions that E-Learning cannot replace classroom teaching due to the lack of interactivity between student and teacher.

5. Conclusion

5.1. The online student is emergent in thinking, skills, and opportunities to warrant an emergent learning platform.

5.2. The learner has completed the research and has located the program that will deliver the online collaboration that they require.

5.3. A prescriptive platform is too conservative to allow technology into the learning theory.

5.4. An emergent platform needs some validation of facts to be creditable.

5.5. The best of both platforms is a blended platform that would allow validation of facts and some controls and the emergent attitudes of social media that will allow the learning to be innovative.

5.6. Social media, multimedia, and collaborative learning, will all thrust education into the 21st Century.

6. Introduction

6.1. Traditional Classroom

6.1.1. The traditional classroom setting should be an encouraging environment that would elicit the instructor to direct a response from the students to compute the learning activity (Charbonneau-Gowdy & Cechova, 2009).

6.1.2. The complicated schedules the career-driven individual tends to keep do not support attending a traditional university.

6.2. Online Platform

6.2.1. Distance learning works for most career-driven individuals who are also balancing a personal life.

6.2.2. According to Sundararajan (2009), online learning’s popularity is due to a few reasons such as a decreasing income, growing enrollments, and a demand for flexibility.

6.2.3. The capability of accessing the learning management system (LMS) at any time from anywhere is a necessity of going back to school for this type of learner.

6.2.4. Online learning has been compared to the traditional classroom from the onset, and nonbelievers cannot conceive how the social learning of the classroom can be duplicated in the online environment.