Online%20Learning:%20From%20Research%20to%20Application

1
Online Learning From Research to Application

• Dr. Curtis J. Bonk
• Associate Professor, Indiana University
• President, CourseShare.com
• http//php.indiana.edu/cjbonk,
• cjbonk_at_indiana.edu

2
Are you ready???
3
Brains Before and After E-learning
After
Before
And when use synchronous and asynchronous tools
4
Tons of Recent Research

• Not much of it
• ...is any good...

5
Basic Distance Learning Finding?

• Research since 1928 shows that DL students
  perform as well as their counterparts in a
  traditional classroom setting.
• Per Russell, 1999, The No Significant Difference
  Phenomenon (5th Edition), NCSU, based on 355
  research reports.
• http//cuda.teleeducation.nb.ca/nosignificantdiffe
  rence/

6
Online Learning Research Problems (National
Center for Education Statistics, 1999 Phipps
Merisotos, 1999 Wisher et al., 1999).

• Anecdotal evidence minimal theory.
• Questionable validity of tests.
• Lack of control group.
• Hard to compare given different assessment tools
  and domains.
• Fails to explain why the drop-out rates of
  distance learners are higher.
• Does not relate learning styles to different
  technologies or focus on interaction of multiple
  technologies.

7
Online Learning Research Problems(Bonk Wisher,
2001)

• For different purposes or domains in our study,
  13 concern training, 87 education
• Flaws in research designs
• - Only 36 have objective learning measures
• - Only 45 have comparison groups
• When effective, it is difficult to know why
• - Course design?
• - Instructional methods?
• - Technology?

8
Evaluating Web-Based InstructionMethods and
Findings (41 studies)(Olson Wisher, October,
2002 International Review of Research in Open
and Distance Learning)
http//www.irrodl.org/content/v3.2/olsen.html
9
Wishers Wish List

• Effect size of .5 or higher in comparison to
  traditional classroom instruction.

10
Evaluating Web-Based Instruction Methods and
Findings(Olson Wisher, in review)

• there is little consensus as to what variables
  should be examined and what measures of of
  learning are most appropriate, making comparisons
  between studies difficult and inconclusive.
• e.g., demographics (age, gender), previous
  experience, course design, instructor
  effectiveness, technical issues, levels of
  participation and collaboration, recommendation
  of course, desire to take addl online courses.

11
Evaluating Web-Based Instruction Methods and
Findings(Olson Wisher, 2002)

• Variables Studied
• Type of Course Graduate (18) vs. undergraduate
  courses (81)
• Level of Web Use All-online (64) vs.
  blended/mixed courses (34)
• Content area (e.g., math/engineering (27),
  science/medicine (24), distance ed (15), social
  science/educ (12), business (10), etc.)
• Attrition data (34)
• Comparison Group (59)

12
Some of the Research Gaps(Bonk Wisher, 2000)

• 1) Variations in Instructor Moderation
• 2) Online Debating
• 3) Student Perceptions of e-Learning Envir.
• 4) Devel of Online Learning Communities
• 5) Time Allocation Instructor and Student
• 6) Critical Thinking and Problem Solving
  Applications in Sync/Asynchronous Envir
• 7) Peer Tutoring and Online Mentoring
• 8) Student Retention E-learning and Attrition
• 9) Graphical Representation of Ideas
• 10) Online Collaboration

13
Many forms of Online InstructionThe Web
Integration Continuum(Bonk et al., 2001)

• Level 1 Course Marketing/Syllabi via the Web
• Level 2 Web Resource for Student Exploration
• Level 3 Publish Student-Gen Web Resources
• Level 4 Course Resources on the Web
• Level 5 Repurpose Web Resources for Others
• Level 6 Web Component is Substantive Graded
• Level 7 Graded Activities Extend Beyond Class
• Level 8 Entire Web Course for Resident Students
• Level 9 Entire Web Course for Offsite Students
• Level 10 Course within Programmatic Initiative

14
Learning Improved(Maki et al., 2000)

• Intro to Psych Lecture vs. Online
• Online performed better on midterms.
• Web-based course students scored higher since had
  weekly activities due
• Lecture students could put off reading until
  night before exam.

15
Learning Improved(review by Chang, 2003)

• Online outperformed peers in histology
  (anatomyplant and animal tissues under
  microscope) course (Shoenfeld-Tacher et al.,
  2001)
• Web enhancements raised exam performance, grades,
  attitudes toward economics
• Agarwal and Day (1998)
• Online business communications students performed
  better on final exams than on campus (Tucker,
  2000)

16
Integrating Wireless Content Syllabus Magazine,
May 13, 2003

• Study by Mobile Learning Corp group of college
  institutions
• Digital content helped first-year college
  accounting students learn
• Online interactive exercises useful to student
  learning
• Encouraged independent student learning, and
  instructors to adopt coaching role.

17
Learning Worse(Wang Newlin, 2000)

• Stat Methods Lecture vs. Online
• No diffs at midterm
• Lecture 87 on final, Web a 72
• Course relatively unstructured
• Web students encouraged to collab
• Lecture students could not collab
• All exams but final were open book

18
Learning Improved or NotOrganizational
Behavior, IUSE(Keefe, Educause Quarterly, 1,
2003)

• Keefe studied 4 semesters of courses, 6 sections,
  118 students
• Face-to-face more satisfied with course and
  instructor
• Those in online course associated with lower
  grades

19
Online FindingsOther Concerns

• Requires instructor be responsive any time
• Ottenhoff Lawrence (1999).
• A study of 436 educational Web sites--instructors
  use simple and limited communication tools
• Mioduser, Nachmias, Lahav, Oren (1998)
• Few syllabi posted to World Lecture Hall utilized
  Web for interaction and collaboration
• None utilized practitioners as mentors
• Cummings, Bonk, Jacobs (2002)

20
Learning Improved or Not(Sankaran et al., 2000)

• Students with a positive attitude toward Web
  format learned more in Web course than in lecture
  course.
• Students with positive attitude toward lecture
  format learned more in lecture format.

21
Contrasting Findings are the Norm

• Some courses impersonal, isolating, and
  frustrating (Hara Kling, 2001)
• Sense of community and lower attrition rates when
  support interactivity, reflection, and sharing
  (Harnishfeger, March, 2003)

22
Different Goals

• Making connections
• Appreciating different perspectives
• Students as teachers
• Greater depth of discussion
• Fostering critical thinking online
• Interactivity online

23
Student Basic Quantitative

• Grades, Achievement Test Scores, etc.
• Number of Posts
• Overall Participation
• Computer Log Activitypeak usage, messages/day,
  time of task or in system
• Attitude Surveys

24
Student High-End Success

• Message complexity, depth, interactivity,
  questioning
• Collaboration skills
• Problem finding/solving and critical thinking
• Challenging and debating others
• Case-based reasoning, critical thinking measures
• Portfolios, performances, PBL activities

25
Other Measures of Student Success(Focus groups,
interviews, observations, surveys, exams, records)

• Positive Feedback, Recommendations
• Increased Comprehension, Achievement
• High Retention in Program
• Completion Rates or Course Attrition
• Jobs Obtained, Internships
• Enrollment Trends for Next Semester

26
Electronic Conferencing Quantitative Analyses

• Usage patterns, of messages, cases, responses
• Length of case, thread, response
• Average number of responses
• Timing of cases, commenting, responses, etc.
• Types of interactions (11 1 many)
• Data mining (logins, peak usage, location,
  session length, paths taken, messages/day/week),
  Time-Series Analyses (trends)

27
Electronic Conferencing Qualitative Analyses

• General Observation Logs, Reflective interviews,
  Retrospective Analyses, Focus Groups
• Specific Semantic Trace Analyses, Talk/Dialogue
  Categories (Content talk, questioning, peer
  feedback, social acknowledgments, off task)
• Emergent Forms of Learning Assistance, Levels of
  Questioning, Degree of Perspective Taking, Case
  Quality, Participant Categories

28
Overall frequency of interactions across chat
categories (6,601 chats).
29
Network Conferencing Interactivity (Rafaeli
Sudweeks, 1997)

• 1. gt 50 percent of messages were reactive.
• 2. Only around 10 percent were truly interactive.
  
• 3. Most messages factual stmts or opinions
• 4. Many also contained questions or requests.
• 5. Frequent participators more reactive than low.
• 6. Interactive messages more opinions humor.
• 7. More self-disclosure, involvement,
  belonging.
• 8. Attracted to fun, open, frank, helpful,
  supportive environments.

30
Week 4
Starter Centered Interaction (Hara, Bonk,
Angeli, 2000)
Scattered Interaction (no starter)
31
Nonnative speakers did not assume roles,
Americans used role names, Ching-Fen Chang (May
2003)
32
Ching-Fen Chang (May 2003)

• it appeared that the Web-based forum
  discussions especially enabled the nonnative
  speakers of English to contribute to the class
  discussions by providing more opportunities to
  contribute than face-to-face discussions.

33
Schallert Reed, AERA, April 2003

• Nonnative students do not participate equally in
  written discussions
• Enthusiastic and frequent contributors do not
  necessarily make intellectually significant
  contributions.
• Some who seem deeply engaged may be less
  rigorously engaged in many conversations

34
Collaborative Behaviors(Curtis Lawson, 1997)

• Most common were (1) Planning, (2) Contributing,
  and (3) Seeking Input.
• Other common events were
• (4) Initiating activities,
• (5) Providing feedback,
• (6) Sharing knowledge
• Few students challenge others or attempt to
  explain or elaborate
• Recommend using debates and modeling appropriate
  ways to challenge others

35
Online Collaboration Behaviors by Categories (US
and Finland)
Behavior Categories Conferences () Conferences () Conferences ()
Behavior Categories Finland U.S. Average
Planning 0.0 0.0 0.0
Contributing 80.8 76.6 78.7
Seeking Input 12.7 21.0 16.8
Reflection/ Monitoring 6.1 2.2 4.2
Social Interaction 0.4 0.2 0.3
Total 100.0 100.0 100.0
36
Dimensions of Learning Process(Henri, 1992)

• 1. Participation (rate, timing, duration of
  messages)
• 2. Interactivity (explicit interaction, implicit
  interaction, independent comment)
• 3. Social Events (stmts unrelated to content)
• 4. Cognitive Events (e.g., clarifications,
  inferencing, judgment, and strategies)
• 5. Metacognitive Events (e.g., both metacognitive
  knowledgeperson, and task, and strategy and well
  as metacognitive skillevaluation, planning,
  regulation, and self-awareness)

37
Some Findings (see Hara, Bonk, Angeli, 2000)

• Social (in 26.7 of units coded)
• social cues decreased as semester progressed
• messages gradually became less formal
• became more embedded within statement
• Cognitive (in 81.7 of units)
• More inferences judgments than elem
  clarifications and in-depth clarifications
• Metacognitive (in 56 of units)
• More reflections on exper self-awareness
• Some planning, eval, regulation self qing

38
Surface vs. Deep Posts(Henri, 1992)

• Surface Processing
• making judgments without justification,
• stating that one shares ideas or opinions already
  stated,
• repeating what has been said
• asking irrelevant questions
• i.e., fragmented, narrow, and somewhat trite.

• In-depth Processing
• linked facts and ideas,
• offered new elements of information,
• discussed advantages and disadvantages of a
  situation,
• made judgments that were supported by examples
  and/or justification.
• i.e., more integrated, weighty, and refreshing.

39
(No Transcript)
40
Critical Thinking (Newman, Johnson, Webb
Cochrane, 1997)

• Used Garrisons five-stage critical thinking
  model
• Critical thinking in both CMC and FTF envir.
• Depth of critical thinking higher in CMC envir.
• More likely to bring in outside information
• Link ideas and offer interpretations,
• Generate important ideas and solutions.
• FTF settings were better for generating new ideas
  and creatively exploring problems.

41
Unjustified Statements (US)

• 24. Author Katherine
• Date Apr. 27 312 AM 1998
• I agree with you that technology is definitely
  taking a large part in the classroom and will
  more so in the future
• 25. Author Jason Date Apr. 28 147 PM 1998
• I feel technology will never over take the role
  of the teacher...I feel however, this is just
  help us teachers...
• 26. Author Daniel Date Apr. 30 011 AM 1998
• I believe that the role of the teacher is being
  changed by computers, but the computer will never
  totally replace the teacher... I believe that the
  computers will eventually make teaching easier
  for us and that most of the children's work will
  be done on computers. But I believe that there

42
Indicators for the Quality of Students
Dialogue(Angeli, Valanides, Bonk, in review)
43
Social Construction of Knowledge (Gunawardena,
Lowe, Anderson, 1997)

• Five Stage Model
• 1. Share ideas,
• 2. Discovery of Idea Inconsistencies,
• 3. Negotiate Meaning/Areas Agree,
• 4. Test and Modify,
• 5. Phrase Agreements
• In global debate, very task driven.
• Dialogue remained at Phase I sharing info

44
Problem-Based LearningDistance Ed, 23(1), 2002

• Practical learning issues generated more
  interactions and higher levels of interaction
  than theoretical issues
• Communities of learners need to negotiate
  identity and knowledge and need milestones (chat
  session agreements, producing reports, sharing
  stories, and new work patterns)
• Group development (1) negotiate problem and
  timetable, (2) divide work in subgroups, and (3)
  produce drafts of products

45
Social Constructivism and Learning Communities
Online (SCALCO) Scale. (Bonk Wisher, 2000)

• ___ 1. The topics discussed online had real world
  relevance.
• ___ 2. The online environment encouraged me to
  question ideas and perspectives.
• ___ 3. I received useful feedback and mentoring
  from others.
• ___ 4. There was a sense of membership in the
  learning here.
• ___ 5. Instructors provided useful advice and
  feedback online.
• ___ 6. I had some personal control over course
  activities and discussion.

46
Problems and Solutions(Bonk, Wisher, Lee, in
press)

1. Tasks Overwhelm
2. Confused on Web
3. Too Nice Due to Limited Share History
4. Lack Justification
5. Hard not to preach
6. Too much data
7. Communities not easy to form

• Train and be clear
• Structure time/dates due
• Develop roles and controversies
• Train to back up claims
• Students take lead role
• Use Email Pals
• Embed Informal/Social

47
Benefits and Implications(Bonk, Wisher, Lee,
in press)

1. Shy open up online
2. Minimal off task
3. Delayed collab more rich than real time
4. Students can generate lots of info
5. Minimal disruptions
6. Extensive E-Advice
7. Excited to Publish

• Use async conferencing
• Create social tasks
• Use Async for debates Sync for help, office
  hours
• Structure generation and force reflection/comment
• Foster debates/critique
• Find Experts or Prac.
• Ask Permission

48
More Implications

• Include Variety tasks, topics, participants,
  accomplishments, etc.
• Make interaction extend beyond class
• Have learners be teachers
• Find multiple ways to succeed
• Add personalization and choice
• Provide clarity and easy navigation

49
Ten Ways Online Ed Matches or Surpasses FTF, Mark
Kassop, Technology Source, Michigan Virtual Univ,
May/June 2003

1. Student-centered learning
2. Writing intensity
3. Highly interactive discussions
4. Geared for lifelong learning
5. Enriched course materials
6. Online demand interaction and support
7. Immediate feedback
8. Flexibility
9. An intimate community of learners
10. Faculty development and rejuvenation

50
My Evaluation Plan
51
Other Evaluation Plans

• Quality on the Line Benchmarks for Success in
  Internet-Based Distance Ed (e.g., the
  teaching/learning process) (Blackboard NEA,
  2000)
• http//www.ihep.com/Pubs/PDF/Quality.pdf
• The Pedagogical Rating of Online CoursesSyllabus
  Magazine, Jan, 2002, Nishikant Sonwalkar

52
Best PracticesWho are some of the key scholars
and promoters???
53
Three Most Vital SkillsThe Online Teacher, TAFE,
Guy Kemshal-Bell (April, 2001)

• Ability to engage the learner (30)
• Ability to motivate online learners (23)
• Ability to build relationships (19)
• Technical ability (18)
• Having a positive attitude (14)
• Adapt to individual needs (12)
• Innovation or creativity (11)

54
Lets brainstorm comments (words or short
phrases) that reflect your overall attitudes and
feelings towards online teaching
55
Feelings Toward Online TeachingThe Online
Teacher, TAFE, Guy Kemshal-Bell (April,
2001)(Note 94 practitioners surveyed.)

• Exciting (30)
• Challenging (24)
• Time consuming (22)
• Demanding (18)
• Technical issue (16) Flexibility (16)
• Potential (15)
• Better options (14) Frustrating (14)
• Collab (11) Communication (11) Fun (11)

56
Changing Role of the TeacherThe Online Teacher,
TAFE, Guy Kemshal-Bell (April, 2001)

• From oracle to guide and resource provider
• From providers of answers to expert questioners
• From solitary teacher to member of team
• From total control of teaching environment to
  sharing as a fellow student
• From provider of content to designer of learning
  experiences.

57
Dennens Research on Nine Online
Courses (sociology, history, communications,
writing, library science, technology, counseling)
Poor Instructors Good Instructors

• Provided regular qual/quant feedback
• Participated as peer
• Allowed perspective sharing
• Tied discussion to grades, other assessments.
• Used incremental deadlines

• Little or no feedback given
• Always authoritative
• Kept narrow focus of what was relevant
• Created tangential discussions
• Only used ultimate deadlines

58
Common Instructor Complaints

1. Students dont participate
2. Students all participate at the last minute
3. Students post messages but dont converse
4. Facilitation takes too much time
5. If they must be absent, the discussion dies off
6. Students are confused

59
Reasons why...

• Students dont participate
• Because it isnt required
• Because they dont know what is expected
• Students all participate at last minute
• Because that is what was required
• Because they dont want to be the first
• Instructor posts at the last minute

60
Research on Instructors Online

• If teacher-centered, less explore, engage,
  interact (Peck, and Laycock, 1992)
• Informal, exploratory conversation fosters
  risktaking knowledge sharing (Weedman, 1999)
• Job Varies--Plan, Interaction, Admin, Tchg
• (McIsaac, Blocher, Mahes, Vrasidas, 1999)

61
Study of Four Classes(Bonk, Kirkley, Hara,
Dennen, 2001)

• TechnicalTrain, early tasks, be flexible,
  orientation task
• ManagerialInitial meeting, FAQs, detailed
  syllabus, calendar, post administrivia, assign
  e-mail pals, gradebooks, email updates
• PedagogicalPeer feedback, debates, PBL, cases,
  structured controversy, field reflections,
  portfolios, teams, inquiry, portfolios
• SocialCafé, humor, interactivity, profiles,
  foreign guests, digital pics, conversations,
  guests

62
(No Transcript)
63
But there is a Problem
64
(No Transcript)
65
How Bad Is It?

• Some frustrated Blackboard users who say the
  company is too slow in responding to technical
  problems with its course-management software have
  formed an independent users group to help one
  another and to press the company to improve.
• (Jeffrey Young, Nov. 2, 2001, Chronicle of Higher
  Ed)

66
Must Online Learning be Boring?
What Motivates Adult Learners to Participate?
67
Motivational Terms?See Johnmarshall Reeve
(1996). Motivating Others Nurturing inner
motivational resources. Boston Allyn Bacon.
(UW-Milwaukee)

1. Tone/Climate Psych Safety, Comfort, Belonging
2. Feedback Responsive, Supports, Encouragement
3. Engagement Effort, Involvement, Excitement
4. Meaningfulness Interesting, Relevant, Authentic
5. Choice Flexibility, Opportunities, Autonomy
6. Variety Novelty, Intrigue, Unknowns
7. Curiosity Fun, Fantasy, Control
8. Tension Challenge, Dissonance, Controversy
9. Interactive Collaborative, Team-Based, Community
10. Goal Driven Product-Based, Success, Ownership

68
1. Tone/Climate Ice Breakers

• A. Eight Nouns Activity
• 1. Introduce self using 8 nouns
• 2. Explain why choose each noun
• 3. Comment on 1-2 peer postings
• B. Coffee House Expectations
• 1. Have everyone post 2-3 course expectations
• 2. Instructor summarizes and comments on how they
  might be met
• (or make public commitments of how they will fit
  into busy schedules!)

69
2. FeedbackRequiring Peer Feedback

• Alternatives
• A. Require minimum of peer comments and give
  guidance (e.g., they should do)
• B. Peer Feedback Through Templatesgive templates
  to complete peer evaluations.
• C. Have e-papers contest(s)

70
3. EngagementElectronic Voting and Polling

• 1. Ask students to vote on issue before class
  (anonymously or send directly to the instructor)
• 2. Instructor pulls our minority pt of view
• 3. Discuss with majority pt of view
• 4. Repoll students after class
• (Option B Delphi or Timed Disclosure Technique
  anomymous input till a due date
• and then post results and
• reconsider until consensus
• Rick Kulp, IBM, 1999)

71
(No Transcript)
72
4. Meaningfulness A. Professional/E-mail
Interviews

• 1. Field Definition Activity Have student
  interview (via e-mail, if necessary) someone
  working in the field of study and share their
  results
• As a class, pool interview results and develop a
  group description of what it means to be a
  professional in the field

73
4. MeaningfulnessB. Field Observation
Reflections

1. Instructor provides reflection or prompt for job
   related or field observations
2. Reflect on job setting or observe in field
3. Record notes on Web and reflect on concepts from
   chapter
4. Respond to peers
5. Instructor summarizes posts

74
5. ChoiceA. Discussion Starter-Wrapper

• Starter reads ahead and starts discussion and
  others participate and wrapper summarizes what
  was discussed.
• Start-wrapper with roles--same as 1 but include
  roles for debate (optimist, pessimist, devil's
  advocate).
• Alternative Facilitator-Starter-Wrapper Instead
  of starting discussion, student acts as moderator
  or questioner to push student thinking and give
  feedback

75
5. ChoiceB. Discussion Multiple Topics

• Generate multiple discussion prompts and ask
  students to participate in 2 out of 3
• Provide different discussion tracks (much like
  conference tracks) for students with different
  interests to choose among
• List possible topics and have students vote
  (students sign up for lead diff weeks)
• Have students list and vote.

76
6. Variety Just-In-Time-Teaching

• Gregor Novak, IUPUI Physics Professor (teaches
  teamwork, collaboration, and effective
  communication)
• Lectures are built around student answers to
  short quizzes that have an electronic due date
  just hours before class.
• Instructor reads and summarizes responses before
  class and weaves them into discussion and changes
  the lecture as appropriate.

77
7. CuriosityA. Electronic Seance

• Students read books from famous dead people
• Convene when dark (sync or asynchronous).
• Present present day problem for them to solve
• Participate from within those characters (e.g.,
  read direct quotes from books or articles)
• Invite expert guests from other campuses
• Keep chat open for set time period
• Debrief

78
7. Curiosity B. Electronic Guests Mentoring

• Find article or topic that is controversial
• Invite person associated with that article
  (perhaps based on student suggestions)
• Hold real time chat
• Pose questions
• Discuss and debrief (i.e., did anyone change
  their minds?)
• (Alternatives Email Interviews with experts
• Assignments with expert reviews)

79
8. Tension Role Play

• A. Role Play Personalities
• List possible roles or personalities (e.g.,
  coach, optimist, devils advocate, etc.)
• Sign up for different role every week (or 5-6 key
  roles)
• Perform within rolesrefer to different
  personalities
• B. Assume Persona of Scholar
• Enroll famous people in your course
• Students assume voice of that person for one or
  more sessions
• Enter debate topic, respond to debate topic, or
  respond to rdg reflections

80
9. Interactive A. Critical/Constructive
Friends, Email Pals, Web Buddies

1. Assign a critical friend (perhaps based on
   commonalities).
2. Post weekly updates of projects, send reminders
   of due dates, help where needed.
3. Provide criticism to peer (i.e., what is strong
   and weak, whats missing, what hits the mark) as
   well as suggestions for strengthening.
4. Reflect on experience.

81
9. InteractiveB. Symposia, Press Conference, or
Panel of Experts

1. Find topic during semester that peaks interest
2. Find students who tend to be more controversial
3. Invite to a panel discussion on a topic or theme
4. Have them prepare statements
5. Invite questions from audience (rest of class)
6. Assign panelists to start

(Alternative Have a series of press conferences
at the end of small group projects one for each
group)
82
10. Goal Driven Gallery Tours

• Assign Topic or Project
• (e.g., Team or Class White Paper, Bus Plan, Study
  Guide, Glossary, Journal, Model Exam Answers)
• Students Post to Web
• Experts Review and Rate
• Try to Combine Projects

83
Motivational Top Ten

• 1. Tone/Climate/Ice Breakers 8 nouns,
  expectations
• 2. Feedback require fdbk, templates, e-papers
  contests
• 3. Engagement polling, voting, timed disclosure
• 4. Meaningfulness e-mail interviews, field
  observations
• 5. Choice starter-wrapper, multiple
  tracks/topics
• 6. Variety just-in-time-teaching
• 7. Curiosity seances, electronic guests/mentors
• 8. Tension role play, assume persona of a
  scholar
• 9. Interactive e-pals, symposia, expert panels
• 10. Goal Driven gallery tours

Pick one you can use??? (circle one)
84
Some Final Advice
Or Maybe Some Questions???