1. Insightful: offering analogies/examples, relationships drawn, interlinkages, connecting weekly ideas.
2. Helpfulness/Responsive: prompt, encouraging, informative, numerous suggestions, advice, quick fdbk.
3. Team Builder: links group members, there for your group, group sage/teacher, not idea squelcher.
4. Pushes Group: moves group to new heights, exploration is fostered, breadth & depth, fosters growth.
5. Diverse Feedback: many forms of learning assistance, response specific to activity and need.
6. Reflective: self-awareness and learning displayed in reflection, coherent and informative reflection.

C. Library Day (10%--20 pts)

I want you to spend a day in the library finding articles that you want and need. You will do this on the week of October 29^th (preferably Oct 28^th). I want you to search for and find 20-30 or more articles on a topic (or topics) of your choice. I want you to copy at least the first page of each of these articles and bring them to class. Not only that, I want you to attempt to read them all (or at least skim them). You have no more than one day on this task. You are not to spend more than a day doing this nor less than a day (you determine what I mean by a day). This is like a scavenger hunt or like reading articles for a dissertation topic. Bring all work to class that week. I will have a form for you to jot down notes on a few of these articles.

D. Definitions and Taxonomy of Cognitive and Collaborative Tools (20%--40 points)

How do these readings fit together? I want you to begin to indicate--through a visual representation--just what you have internalized by depicting the cognitive and collaborative tools in your field of study. Maximum visual representation size is a folded 11 X 17 sheet of paper. First, lay out some important terms here (perhaps 20-30 words) and provide broad tool-related definitions. Second, link these terms into common categories that relate to particular weekly discussions or important concepts. Above these categories you might provide a listing a learner-centered psychological and design principles, while attempting to create an overarching taxonomy of the tools in your field. Third, I want you to verbally describe what this visual representation of broad tool definitions, categories, and principles represents. Please summarize and interpret your visual display in a 2-3 page single-spaced paper. In effect, there are three key indicators of learning here: (1) definitional; (2) visual; and (3) verbal interpretation. This is due Nov. 12th. (Examples will be available.)

E. Major Project: Eight Options–Pick one! (40%--80 points)

With the eight options listed below, you have a chance to experiment with or observe the uses of technology tools in schools and nontraditional learning environments, propose a totally unique software tool, or provide help to your peers. We will discuss these briefly during the final class period. You have a choice of the following: (1) Naturalistic Study; (2) Research Intervention; (3) Research/Grant Proposal; (4) Tool Design Proposal; (5) Curriculum Integration Proposal; (6) Research Presentation; (7) Educational Tool Demonstration; (8) Usable Class Product. A joint pilot research project with a fellow student or faculty member is a possibility. CAUTION: For option #1 or #2, you may need human subject’s approval before proceeding. The project is to be completed by December 10th.

1. Naturalistic Study: You might perform a case study or pilot observation of workers/students using collaborative tools or collaborative tool interaction in a school, workplace, or informal learning setting. For instance, you might decide to complete a case study of a young person or adult using a collaboration tool or interactive learning tool for the first time; including at least five careful observations and commentary of the person and tutor/teacher. The commentary should reflect your learning and provide insights as to how to make this tool more educationally meaningful. If you are looking at student-teacher-tool interaction patterns, teacher guidance, or simply tool use, you will need to design coding schemes and observation log sheets to help interpret tool functionality in this environment (see below for details).

2. Research Intervention: In Option #2, you might want to try to use and analyze a specific task, tool, or theory. Based on your interests and existing theory, you should form specific research questions before your intervention. Though your study can take many forms, the research report you submit should detail the purpose and framework of the intervention (i.e., why was this particular project chosen), include a literature review, method section, a description of what occurred (were you successful?), explanation of the results, and possibilities for extending this study (see details below).

3. Research/Grant Proposal: Option #3 can be either a grant or research proposal. In this option, students must write a paper on a possible study of the use of new collaboration or learning technologies which: (1) extends/modifies the research, or (2) suggests a totally unique but reasonable research project/study. It may be either a quantitative intervention or qualitative study. It should include a(n): introduction, brief review of the important literature, methods section (e.g., hypotheses, subjects, materials/resources, variables, procedure, instruments, and anticipated analyses), and discussion of expected results (including the meaning and relationship to the field). Your proposal can be within any aspect of technology tools for impacting learning and thinking. You may target any age group or population level.

4. Tool Design Proposal: Choose Option #4 if you would you like to design a unique collaborative educational learning tool or at least propose the design of a unique educational tool, instructional design model, or unique curriculum application of an existing tool. Instructional design does not need to include any programming. However, it must clearly indicate: (a) the purpose (e.g., the skills addressed); (b) how it might be implemented; (c) the advantages of using this tool, theory, or application to accomplish your educational goals; (d) possible grant sources for programming or design; (e) a mock-up sample of design documents; and (f) description of applicable learner centered design principles.

5. Curriculum Integration Proposal: Here you might contemplate the curriculum impact of one or more learning tools. How are you going to use it? What would change? What training would there be needed for successful use? How might faculty, students, administrators, and parents react to all this? Include a description of tool, how it could or should be used in traditional or nontraditional learning, and what you believe to be its strengths and weaknesses.

6. Research Presentation: Again, in the spirit of an interactive seminar, the purpose of this option is to allow for student input and also provide practice in presenting information in the style required for conferences. Here, you are to orally present a research proposal or synthesize aspects of the research or readings for the class wherein you point out a new direction that researchers or teachers might want to head. Presenters should meet with me prior to the presentation in order to discuss the topic and proposed organization of the presentation. Given time constraints, the presentation length will be no longer than 20-25 minutes (see below for details).

7. Educational Tool Demonstration: You might want to demonstrate a learning or collaboration software tool that is promoted for an educational setting such as a library, corporate training center, computer lab, museum, zoo, classroom, or learning center. See the instructor about the possibilities of demonstrating a particularly interesting tool you have found.

8. Usable Class Product: Students choosing Option #8 will create or perform a meaningful activity for the class. For example, you might summarize the learning principles embedded in all the articles we read this semester, locate the 10-20 most popular collaborative educational learning tools (CELT) for public schools, uniquely categorize the tools studied, summarize the weekly articles read, or create a database summarize major themes and trends in a technology or psychology journal for a 3-5 year period. Your final report, however, will be your own design as there is no preconceived format.

A. Help create software evaluation forms (e.g., Journal of Research on Computing in Ed).
B. Business Ideas/plans–react to ideas from educational companies.
C. Help the distance lrng company with research (e.g., VU, E-education, other).
D. Help create a web page for ed psych–all books, conferences, courses, web links, etc.
E. Help set up our class in e-education.
F. Do research on existing data (e.g., COW project from past 2 years).
G. Find, catalog, and share free stuff (e.g., conferencing tools, chat, web pub tools, etc.)
H. Help researchers from other universities eval. lrng communities or computer conferencing.
J. Other

1. Review of the Problem/Lit/Purpose (interesting, relevant, current, organized, thorough, grounded)
2. Hypothesis/Research Q’s/Intentions (clear, related to class and theory, current, extend field)
3. Method/Procedures (subjects/age groups approp, materials relevant, timeline sufficient, controls)
4. Research Activity/Design/Topic/Tool (clear, doable/practical, detailed, impt, implications, future)
5. Overall Richness of Ideas (richness of information, elaboration, originality, unique)
6. Overall Coherence (unity, organization, logical sequence, synthesis, style, accurate)
7. Overall Completeness (adequate info presented, explicit, relevant, precise, valid pts)

1. EC (1998): Preface, intro, chapters 1-5 (Chapter 2 is required)
   T1. Soloway, Kuzdial, & Hay (1994). Learner-centered design: The challenge for 21st cent.
   T2. Wagner & McCombs. (1995). Learner-centered psych princ in practice, for dist educ.

Week 3. (Sept. 17th) Linking Tools to Cognitive and Constructivistic Principles

1. Crook, C. (1994). Computers in ed: Some issues. In Computers and the collab exper of learning.
2. Goldman, S. R., & The Technology and Cognition Group at Vanderbilt (1999). Chapter 3: Technology-rich instructional environments that support learning with understanding. In: Technology for teaching and learning with understanding (A Primer). Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin Company.
3. Koschmann, T. D., Myers, A. C., Feltovich, P. J., & Barrows, H. S. (1994). Using technology to assist in realizing effective learning and instruction: A principled approach to the use of computers in collaborative learning. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 3(3), 227-264.
4. Salomon, G. (1998). Novel constructivist learning environments and novel technologies: Some issues to be concerned with. Research Dialogue in Learning and Instruction, 1(1), 3-12.
5. Collins, A. (1996). Design issues for learning environments.

1. Morrell, K., Marchionini, G., & Neuman, D. (1993). Sailing Perseus: Instructional Strategies for hypermedia in the classics. Journal of Educational Hypermedia and Multimedia 2(4), 337-353.
2. Davidson-Shivers, G., V., Rasmussen, K. L., & Bratton-Jeffery, M. F. (1997). Investigating learning strategies generation in a hypermedia environment using qualitative methods. Journal of Computing in Childhood Education, 8(2/3), 247-261.
3. Dillon, A., & Gabbard, R. (1998). Hypermedia as an educational technology: A review of the quantitative research literature on learner comprehension, control, and style. Review of Educational Research, 68(3), 322-349.
4. Rouet, J. F., & Passerault, J. M. (1999). Analyzing learner-hypermedia interaction: An overview of online methods. Instructional Science, 27, 201-219.
5. Erickson, J., & Lehrer, R. (1998). The evolution of critical standards as students design hypermedia documents. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 7(3&4), 351-386.

1. Neuwirth, C. M., & Wojahn, P. G. (1996). Learning to write: Computer support for a cooperative process. In T. Koschmann (Ed.), CSCL: Theory and practice of an emerging paradigm (pp. 147-170). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
2. Bransford, J. D., et al. (1996). Most environments for accelerating literacy development. In Vosniadou, S., De Corte, E., Glaser, R., & Mandl, H. (Eds.), International perspectives on the design of technology-supported learning environments (pp. 223-255). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
3. Reynolds & Bonk (1996). (ETR&D) Creating computerized writing partner and keystroke mapping tools.
4. Salomon, G. (1993). On the nature of pedag computer tools: The case of the Writing partner
5. Slatin, J. M. (1992). Is there a class in this text: Creating know in an elect classroom

1. EC: Chapter 11.
2. Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (1994). Computer support for knowledge-building communities. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 3(3), 265-283.
3. Lehrer, R. (1993). Authors of knowledge: Patterns of hypermedia design
4. Landow, G. (1993). Bootstrapping hypertext: Student-created docs, Intermedia, & the soc cons of know
5. Bonk et al. (1996). The social and cognitive transformation of workplace writing environments.

Week 7. (Oct. 15th) Science and Math Tools: Conducting Inquiry

1. Rochelle, J. (1996). Learning by collaborating: Convergent conceptual change. Learning to write: Computer support for a cooperative process. In T. Koschmann (Ed.), CSCL: Theory and practice of an emerging paradigm (pp. 209-248). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
2. Soloway, E., Krajcik, J. S., Blumenfeld, P., & Marx, R. (1996). Technological support for teachers transitioning to project-based science practices. In T. Koschmann (Ed.), CSCL: Theory and practice of an emerging paradigm (pp. 269-305). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
3. Gomez, L. M., Fishman, B. J., & Pea, R. D. (1998). The CoVis Project: Building a large-scale science education testbed. Interactive Learning Environments, 6(1-2), 59-92. LI>Linn, M. C., Bell, P., & His, S. (1998). Using the Internet to enhance student understanding of science: The Knowledge Integration Environment. Interactive Learning Environments, 6(1-2), 4-38.

1. Edelson, Pea, & Gomez. (1996). Constructivism in the collaboratory.
2. Songer, N. (in press). Can technology bring students closer to science?
3. Stratford, S. J. (1997). A review of computer-based model research in precollege science classrooms. Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching. 16(1), 3-23.
4. Friedler, Y., & McFarlane, A. E. (1997). Data logging with portable computers: A study of the impact on graphing skills in secondary pupils. Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching, 16(4), 527-550.
5. Goldman et al. (1996). Anchoring science instruction in multimedia environments.

1. EC (1998): Chapters 7, 12, 13
2. Hara, N., Bonk, C. J., & Angeli, C., (in press for 1999). Content analyses of on-line discussion in an applied educational psychology course. Instructional Science.
3. Bonk, C. J., Malikowski, S., Angeli, C., & East, J. (1998). Web-based case conferencing for preservice teacher education: Electronic discourse from the field, Journal of Educational Computing Research, 19(3), 267-304.

1. EC (1998): Chapter 8, 9, or 10 (pick 1 perhaps)
2. Kuehn (1994). Computer-mediated communication in instructional settings: A research agenda.
3. Henri, F. (1992). Computer conferencing and content analysis.
4. Levin, Kim, & Riel (1990). Analyzing instructional interactions on electronic message networks.
5. Walther, J. B. (1996). Computer-mediated communication: Impersonal, interpersonal, and hyperpersonal interaction. Communication Research, 23(1), 3-43.
6. Riel & Harasim (1994). Research perspectives on network learning.

1. EC (1998): Chapter 6, Sugar & Bonk; Chapter 14, Siegel & Kirkley
2. Riel, M. (1996). Cross-classroom collaboration: Communication and education. In T. Koschmann (Ed.), CSCL: Theory and practice of an emerging paradigm (pp. 187-207). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
3. Levin, J., & Waugh, M. (1998). Teaching teleapprenticeships: Electronic network-based educational frameworks for improving teacher education. Interactive Learning Environments, 6(1-2), 39-58.
4. Ann Brown et al. (1993). Distributed expertise in the classroom.

Week 13. (Nov. 26th) Distance Education: Web Pedagogy and Instruction

1. Harasim, Hiltz, Teles, & Turoff (1995). Designs for learning networks (Chap 4 & Appendix A)
2. Bonk & Reynolds (1997). Lrnr-centered web instr for higher-order thinking, teamwork, & apprenticeship..
3. Bonk, C. J., & Dennen, V. (1999). Teaching on the Web: With a little help from my pedagogical friends. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 11(1), 3-28.
4. Bonk, C. J., & Cummings, J. A. (1998). A dozen recommendations for placing the student at the center of Web-based instruction. Educational Media International, 35(2), 82-89.
5. Massey, C., & Curry, J. (1999). Online post-secondary education: A competitive analysis. Burnaby, BC: TeleLearning Network of Centers of Excellence, Simon Fraser University. (on reserve in the education library)

1. Owston, R. D. (1997). The World Wide Web: A technology to enhance teaching and learning.
2. Mason, R. (1998). Models of online learning. ALN Magazine, 2(2).
3. Kraut, R., et al. (1998). Internet paradox: A social technology that reduces social involvement and psychological well being. The American Psychologist, 53(9), 1017-1031.
4. Windschitl, M. (1998). The WWW and classroom research: What path should we take? Educational Researcher, 27(1), 28-33.
5. Rochelle, J., & Pea, R. (1999). Trajectories from today’s WWW to a powerful educational infrastructure. Educational Researcher, 28(5), 22-25, & 43.

1. EC (1998): Chapter 15.
2. Lamon et al. (1996). Schools for thought.
3. McLellan, H, (1996). Virtual realities. In D. Jonassen (Ed.), Handbook for research on educational communications and technology (pp. 457-487). Boston, MA, Kluwer-Nijhoff Publishers.
4. Dede, C. (1996). The evolution of distance education: Emerging technologies and distributed learning. The American Journal of Distance Education. 10(2), 4-36.