• Web Collaboration

  • title of article
• Web collaboration refers to Web, social and software tools used to facilitate website customer communication for increased sales and satisfaction on the Internet in real time.

  • this article is a definition of internet collaboration and types of techniques of it.

  • According to ten C's since the title, and who made it is listed but there is no author, you can apply critical think skills to this source, there is no citation because it is a dictionary site. But the its continuously updated,connectivity is good more than one user can uses site at a time. The context of the site is good you can't find anything about it since site is just a definition of internet collaboration.
• Web collaboration techniques include phone/text chat and remote multiuser conferences/seminars via intranet or phone systems. Web collaboration also facilitates employee communication and interaction within an organization.
• Web collaboration is a component of unified communications, which facilitate organizational teamwork and workflow. If unified communications is not well developed within an organization,

2 more annotations...

• FAQs About Online Collaboration

  • title of article
• From Gabriela Warren

  • author of article.
• What is online collaboration?
• Simply put, online collaboration lets a group of people work together in real-time over the Internet.

  • this article is about what is internet collaboration basically and other questions relating to it.

  • According to ten C's since the title, and who made and author of it is listed, you can apply critical think skills to this source, there is no citation because it is a dictionary site. But the its continuously updated,connectivity is good more than one user can uses site at a time. The context of the site is good you can't find anything about it since site is just a definition of internet collaboration.
• What are the key features in an online collaboration tool?
• First of all, a successful online collaboration tool needs to be easy to use and set up. Then, it needs to be secure and to have the features that will fit your purposes - these are different for every team.
• Is online collaboration secure?
• es. All reputable online collaboration tools have security features which ensure that anyone who is not invited to your workplace can’t see the documents that you are working on. In addition, most tools offer encryption, which is an additional layer of security that makes your documents unreadable to those with malicious intentions.
• Is online collaboration for everyone, or is it only effective in larger organizations?
• Virtual collaboration is good for organizations of any size, as long as there is interest in working together over the Internet. Not only is online collaboration great for working with your colleagues, but it's also good when working on documents with clients. Because it helps create a sense of teamwork and transparency, it can even help improve client relationships.
• How can online collaboration help business?
• The Internet has enabled an increasingly dispersed workforce, and it's not uncommon to see modern-day employees working with people from all over the world. Collaborating online is the perfect way to diminish the distance between employees, as they can work together on the same documents, at the same time as if they were all in the same room.

10 more annotations...

• What does true online collaboration mean?
• Posted by Calgary Scientific on Tue, Mar 13, 2012

  • According to ten C's since the title, and author are listed but publication, you can apply critical think skills to this source, there is no citation because it is a dictionary site. But the its continuously updated,connectivity is good more than one user can uses site at a time. The context of the site is good you can't find anything about it since site is just a definition of internet collaboration.

  • the author and date of it being published
• By definition, collaboration means "to work jointly with others or together especially in an intellectual endeavour," ref Merriam Webster. In the world of technology and the internet, "modern communication" collaboration really means working together to reach a common goal. Collaboration vs. True Online Collaboration though, is the question. Collaboration is a very broad term. True online collaboration is when we can utilize software to truly work with others as if they were here in the room with us - geography is no longer a barrier.
• Why is collaboration important?
• It enables us to share resources, achieve shared goals, share new ideas and new perspectives. It also allows
• us to leverage new relationships by taking advantage of tools and skill sets unique to each individual.

  • this article describes internet collaboration,why its important and benefits of collaboration.
• What is the benefit of collaboration?
• At one time collaboration was a very linear process; technology has changed this and we've established or are at least in the process of creating a collaborative culture. This is one that will continue to grow and evolve.

6 more annotations...

• Posted by GovDelivery in Email Communication

  • the title is listed, (will not let me highlight it), publication is GovDelivery
• January 29th, 2009

  • Date of it being published
• Email is the Internet's Killer App. Use it well.
• I want to share how we're helping clients leverage email to promote blogs, support Twitter, and utilize other social media. I want to brag about what our clients are doing in the area of collaboration and Web 2.0.
• When we step back and think about how we can best help government communicate with the public effectively, email rises above every other opportunity for two reasons. First, it is ubiquitous. Our clients care about reaching people and email is the number one use of the Internet by a landslide. Second, there is still a lot of room for improvement.
• The Pew Internet and American Life Project released a new report on daily Internet activity. Although the focus of the report was the growth of daily search activity by Americans, the report showed an astounding 60% of Americans use email every day. Search has grown to 49 percent, from about a third in 2002. But the author calls email "arguably the Internet's all time killer app:"
• Email is used by almost 53% of Americans to share information about a new product or service with others, second only to face to face communication and ahead of phone calls. Email is also the preferred digital channel for all purposes in every age group with the exception of young teenagers, who prefer text messaging where social communication is the priority.
• Do you do a good job of offering and promoting all important topics by email? Are you offering subscribers many choices? Are you promoting your new types of content (blogs, videos, social media content) by email
• Newer applications like text messaging and social networks like Twitter get far more attention. But for final measure, let's compare some stats.
• All of this is not to say that Twitter, Facebook, Texting, RSS, etc. do not have value. They are amazing channels that build community, allow for direct conversations, and give citizens flexibility in how they will interact with government.
• However, the power of email for driving better communication with the public is unrivaled, and there are still many opportunities to use email better. I suggest you treat email like the foundation of your digital communication house and treat other channels as nice additions that you can focus on when your foundation is strong. If you focus too much on using new channels, you may fail to leverage the most powerful channel for public communication in history… plain old email.

  • According to ten C's since the title, author and date of publication is listed you can apply critical think skills to this source, there is no citation But the its updated in the past few years,connectivity is good more than one user can uses site at a time. The context of the site is good you can't find anything about communication but it does give information about email.

  • the credibility of this source 70 according to ten C's since the title, author and date of publication is listed you can apply critical think skills to this source, there is no citation But the its updated in the past few years,connectivity is good more than one user can uses site at a time. The context of the site is good you can't find anything about communication but it does give information about email.
  • 1 more sticky notes...

  • • This source gives information supporting the uses of email in society. Statistics of the percentage of U.S. citizens check email daily and uses social networks like Twitter and Facebook.

9 more annotations...

• The Importance of Electronic Communication in Workplace Collaboration

  • the title is listed
• Demand Media

  • publication of article
• by Neil Kokemulle

  • the author of article
• Electronic communication has become more important to workplace collaboration in the early 21st century. Expansion of globalization and more spread out distribution of work team members have made it useful in sharing information and communicating on projects. The Internet, email, social media and virtual team "rooms" are common tools used for electronic workplace collaboration.
• Origins
• The importance of electronic communication in workplace collaboration began to surge in the late 20th century,
• Benefits
• Email, virtual team rooms and other basic interactive tools provided by the Internet were among the first drivers of dispersed work teams. These tools allow companies to have employees collaborate on projects economically, even when they are located in different parts of the world.
• Diversity
• A result of the availability of greater electronic communication tools is the increased ability of companies to develop diverse workplaces. Companies that can build diverse work teams take advantage of a broader range of ideas and better ability to serve global marketplaces with knowledgeable employees.
• Limitations

  • this source gives communication methods of the workplace of collaboration.
• Despite their benefits, electronic communication does have limitations. Face-to-face communication remains important to building strong relationships with clients and colleagues.

• About the Author

   

  Neil Kokemuller has been an active writer and content media website developer since 2007. He wrote regular feature articles for LiveCharts for three years and has been a college marketing professor since 2004. He has four years of additional professional experience in marketing, retail and small business, and he holds a Master of Business Administration from Iowa State University.

  • information about the author
• • Gartner: The Electronic Workplace: The Evolution Continues
  • Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Inc.: The Virtual Workplace: A Reality Now
  • Journal of Technology Law & Policy: You Got Mail But Your Employer Does Too: Electronic Communication and Privacy in the 21st Century Workplace
• References

  • According to ten C's since the title, author and date of publication is listed you can apply critical think skills to this source, there is no citation But the its updated in the recently, connectivity is good more than one user can uses site at a time. It gives references giving credibility to the author and article. It’s comparability it’s a pdf that is basically the article digitized. The context of the site is good you can find anything about communication in the workplace.

  • this source gives the communication methods of the workplace of collaboration and some examples of collaboration tools like email and visual team rooms and other basic interactive provided by the internet.

13 more annotations...

• Sunday, April 22, 2007

  • the date in which it was created or published
• Online Collaboration Tools: Cost-Effective Solutions For Online Teachers

  • the title of the article
• Online collaboration tools and technologies are increasingly going to shape and model the communication, learning, working and social experiences we will be able to create in the near future.
• New modes of learning, sharing and hooking up with partners, team-mates and colleagues will completely replace the time-consuming, long and boring practices we use today in our real, physical world.
• Without interrupting the work-flow and focus of attention of the individuals we get in touch with, we will gradually extend and mesh our close physical connections with the ones of people and teams working at thousands of miles of distance from us.
• collaboration tools and technology options now available to them.
• • Screen-sharing
• • Web Presentation
• Online Video Publishing And Sharing
• Screensharing Tools And Technology

  • the tools and technologies available for sharing presentations over the internet with multiple people.

• What is Screen Sharing?

   

  Screen sharing is generally understood as the technologically-empowered ability to transmit the contents of your computer screen to one or more remotely connected Internet users.
• In other words screen sharing allows you to show PowerPoint presentations, Word documents, images and any other software running on your computer while remotely connected users see in real-time what you see on your screen.

  • allowing a presentation to be remotely shared with people all over the world or country.
• • Vyew
   
  • GoToMeeting
   
  • Glance
   
  • Persony
   
  • HelpMeeting Presenter
   
  • eBLVD
   
  • ezMeeting
   
  • Netviewer
   
  • WebBrush
   
  • Shareitnow
   
  • BeamYourScreen
   
  • GoMeetNow
   
  • GatherPlace
   
  • WebEx MeetMeNow
   
  • BLive
   
  • RealVNC
   
  • ISLlight
   
  • Network Streaming
   
  • GoToAssist
   
  • Spreed
   
  • ScreenStream
   
  • Bosco Screen Sharing
   
  • SkyFex
   
  • AOL Instant Messenger Pro
   
  • Unyte

  • the different screen sharing tools that can be utilized for presentations.
• Web Presentation Tools And Technologies
• Web presentation tools and technologies provide the means to deliver any PowerPoint-based or similar type of visual presentation to an Internet-connected audience, no matter where participants are connecting from.
• PowerPoint itself allows the saving of any presentation as a set of Web pages. But while such output can be comfortably looked at on the computer where you have created it, it is not easy at all for a non-technically-savvy person to learn how to make those web pages show up at a specific address on the web where anyone else connected to the Internet can see them too.

  • powerpoint presentations can be shared as a set of web pages.

• Some of the limitations of exporting PowerPoint presentations into web pages directly from within PowerPoint may include:

   
  • Animations including slide transitions, are not supported (however, animated GIF pictures do run and are supported).
  
   
  • GIF pictures might not be animated if the presentation is saved with a screen size setting of 640 x 480 or less.
  
   
  • The slide isn't scaled to fit the browser window. It stays at a fixed screen resolution based on the screen size setting selected when you published the presentation.
  
   
  • The presentation cannot be viewed full screen.
  
   
  • You cannot open or close frames.
  
   
  • The active slide title is not highlighted in the outline pane.
  
   
  • The mouse does not highlight elements in the outline pane.
  
   
  • Sounds and movies do not play.
  
   
  • Some graphics will not look as good as they do in Microsoft Internet Explorer 4.0 or later.

  • the limitations of exporting PowerPoint presentations into web pages directly from within PowerPoint.
• On the other hand newer software and web-based technologies now allow the easy-uploading of PowerPoint presentations to dedicated web presentation services and even the delivery of unattended, on-demand presentations having a custom web page address (URL).
• • TeamSlide
   
  • iVocalize
   
  • Convoq
   
  • WebEx Presentation Studio
   
  • PresenterNet
   
  • InstantPresenter
   
  • OnlinePresenter
   
  • Vyew
   
  • Spreed
   
  • Slide
   
  • Slidestory
   
  • ZohoShow
   
  • vMix
   
  • RockYou
   
  • FlickrShow
   
  • Gliffy
   
  • ReplayHQ
   
  • Brainshark
   
  • Adobe Connect Professional
   
  • Empressr
   
  • SPresent
   
  • S5
   
  • HTML Slidy
   
  • Opera Show
   
  • Microsoft Producer
   
  • Camtasia
   
  • Articulate Presenter
   
  • QPresenter

  • shows the different Web presentation tools and technologies that can be used other than powerpoint.
• Originally written by Robin Good and first published on MasterNewMedia

  • According to ten C's since the title is listed. You can apply critical think skills to this source. But it’s updated in the recently, connectivity is good more than one user can uses site at a time. It’s comparability it’s a website that is basically the article is. The context of the site is good you can find anything about presentation tools and how effective they are.

  • This article describes some of the technologies and tools that can be utilized for presentations and sharing them. Gives examples of each type of tool or technology and what it can help you do.
  • 1 more sticky notes...

  • • the author of the article and the publication that it came from.

18 more annotations...

• The Future of Science

  • title of article
• by Michael Nielsen on July 17, 2008

  • the author and date of it being published
• How can the internet benefit science?
• How can the internet improve the way we do science? There are two useful ways to answer this question. The first is to view online tools as a way of expanding the range of scientific knowledge that can be shared with the world:
• Many online tools do just this, and some have had a major impact on how scientists work.
• wo successful examples are the physics preprint arXiv, which lets physicists share preprints of their papers without the months-long delay typical of a conventional journal, and GenBank, an online database where biologists can deposit and search for DNA sequences.

  • the article states that online tools can be useful for scientists and gives some examples of some.
• A failure of science online: Wikipedia
• Wikipedia is a second example where scientists have missed an opportunity to innovate online. Wikipedia has a vision statement to warm a scientist’s heart: “Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in the sum of all knowledge. That’s our commitment.”
• The challenge: achieving extreme openness in science
• These failures of science online are all examples where scientists show a surprising reluctance to share knowledge that could be useful to others.

• Further reading

   

   

   The ideas explored in this essay are developed at much greater length in my book Reinventing Discovery: The New Era of Networked Science.

• Footnotes

   

   

   [1] Clay Shirky’s “Here Comes Everybody” is an excellent book that contains much of interest on new ways of collaborating. 

   

   [2] An ongoing experiment which incorporates online commentary and many other innovative features is PLoS ONE. It’s too early to tell how successful its commentary will be. 

   

   [3] I strongly recommend Peter Suber’s Open Access News as a superb resource on all things open access. 

   

   [4] Shirley Wu and Cameron Neylon have stimulating blog posts where they propose ideas closely related to collaboration markets.

  • According to ten C's since the title, author, publication is listed. You can apply critical think skills to this source. But it’s updated in the recently, connectivity is good more than one user can uses site at a time. Copyright of School Library Journal is the property of Media Source, Inc. The footnotes gives sources used supporting citation. It’s comparability it’s a website that is basically the article digitized. The context of the site is good you can find anything about science an internet collaboration use in it.

  • it gives references and sources supporting its claims making it a credible source for my research.

10 more annotations...

• Scientific Collaboration on the Internet

  • title of article
• Edited by Gary M. Olson, Ann Zimmerman and Nathan Bos

  • the authors of the article
• Modern science is increasingly collaborative
• Scientific Collaboration on the Internet provides both broad and in-depth views of how new technology is enabling novel kinds of science and engineering collaboration.
• It points to a future of scientific collaborations that build successfully on aspects from multiple disciplines.

  • This book shows how individuals might use collaboration on a range of projects and the way they will achieve success. Once more showing how the science and knowledge does not need to suffer due to the locations between collaborators.

• About the Editors

       

   

  Gary M. Olson is Paul M. Fitts Collegiate Professor of Human Computer Interaction and Professor in both the School of Information and the Department of Psychology at the University of Michigan.

  Ann Zimmerman is a Research Assistant Professor in the School of Information at the University of Michigan.

  Nathan Bos is a Senior Research Scientist at the Applied Physics Laboratory of Johns Hopkins University.

  • According to ten C's since the title, author, publication is listed. You can apply critical think skills to this source. But it’s updated in the recently, connectivity is good more than one user can uses site at a time. It’s comparability it’s a website that is basically a review of a book on the internet. The context of the site is good you can find anything about science and internet collaboration in it.

  • Since the information is a review of a an actual book, the information must be accurate, these facts support its credibility.
  • 1 more sticky notes...

  • • the contact and vocations of the authors.

4 more annotations...

• Alex Knapp, Forbes

  • the author and publication of the source
• Internet Collaboration Will Lead to More Innovation

  • the title of the article
• Online tools create a shared space where this can happen, a short-term collective working memory where ideas can be rapidly improved by many minds.
• These tools enable us to scale up creative conversation, so connections that would ordinarily require fortuitous serendipity instead happen as a matter of course.
• more conversations, quicker feedback
• There is a power in the intelligence of groups that I think is sorely underestimated.
• It’s small teams of people, working on common goals, that truly drive discovery, invention, and innovation.
• two heads are better than one, especially when they harness more than one computer.

  • this it totally true.
• With improving computers and an ever-growing internet, there’s plenty of space for good feedback, argumentation, and collaboration.
• human minds that can collaborate with each other no matter where they are located.

  • According to ten C's since the title, author, publication is listed. You can apply critical think skills to this source. But it’s updated in the recently, connectivity is good more than one user can uses site at a time. It’s comparability it’s a website that is basically the article digitized. The context of the site is good you can find anything about internet collaboration leading to more innovations.

  • This suggests that working collaboratively helps individuals work with more efficacy than if they were working alone and that they do not have to wait for good fortune to come along if it does.

8 more annotations...

• Journal of Distance Education/Revue de   l'enseignement à distance (1999)

  • the title of article and year of its publication.
• Elizabeth Stacey

  • the author of the article
• Elizabeth Stacey is a senior lecturer in the School of  Scientific and Developmental Studies in the Faculty of Education at Deakin  University in Melbourne, Australia. She teaches and researches the use of  information and communication technologies in distance education, and her  doctoral research explored adult collaborative learning online. Her e-mail  address is estacey@deakin.edu.au.

  • information about the author
• The study described in this article researched the process of  collaborative learning that occurred when postgraduate students studying a  Master of Business Administration (MBA) program used computer-mediated  communication (CMC) as a means of small-group and large-group communication. It  reports a largely qualitative study of groups of students learning  collaboratively while living remotely from their university campus. The main  objective of the research was to observe and document the effects of the use of  the computer-mediated group conferences on the group interaction of the students  and to record their use and perceptions of the effects of the use of  computer-mediated communication in their learning process.
• Potential for Collaborative Learning in Distance  Education
• Group Sharing of Resources, New Ideas, and Expert  Advice
• Learners generously shared their resources electronically, such as researched  explanations, literature references, or expert advice, and this was an effective  aspect of collaborative learning. Such resources clarified students’  understandings and expanded new ideas and concepts. Other students’ work was  also an extra resource for the student working individually as it could be taken  in and extended during later group discussion. Students provided access to  advice from industry consultants, and the group process enabled this access to  be shared and discussed.
• The Power of Group Discussion Mediated by Communications  Media
• The CMC discussion meant that the group provided students with the means of  clarification or changing of ideas as they formed them. The group discussion  affirmed or negated their construction of concepts, providing a means of  extending ideas beyond the level they can manage individually “to the level of  potential development as determined through problem solving under adult guidance  or in collaboration with more capable peers” (Vygotsky, 1978, p. 86). In this  case adult meant an expert in the knowledge community of this study of  all adult participants.
• Using the Conferences to Manage Group Activities

  • this article explains collaborative learning that occurred with postgraduate students. Giving facts that support its claims and the success of the students.

• References

   

  Bednar, A.K., Cunningham, D., Duffy, T.D., & Perry, J.D.  (1992). Theory into practice: How do we link? In T.M. Duffy & D.H. Jonassen  (Eds.), Constructivism and the technology of instruction (pp. 17-34).  Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

   

  Brown, K. (1996). The role of internal and external factors in the  discontinuation of off-campus students. Distance Education, 17(1),  44-71.

   

  Bruffee, K.A. (1993). Collaborative learning: Higher education,  interdependence, and the authority of knowledge. London: Johns Hopkins  University Press.

   

  Bullen, M. (1998). Participation and critical thinking in online  university distance education. Canadian Journal of Distance Education  13(2), 1-32.

   

  Burge, E.J. (1994). Learning in computer conferenced contexts: The  learner’s perspective. Canadian Journal of Distance Education, 9(1),  19-43.

   

  Eastmond, D.V. (1994). Adult distance study through computer  conferencing. Distance Education, 15(1), 128-152.

   

  Forman, E.A., &. McPhail, J. (1993). Vygotskian perspective on  children’s collaborative problem-solving activities. In E.A. Forman, N. Minick,  & C.A. Stone (Eds.), Contexts for learning: Sociocultural dynamics in  children’s development (pp. 213-229). New York: Oxford University Press.

   

  Foley, G. (1995). Teaching adults. In G. Foley (Ed.),  Understanding adult education and training (pp. 31-53). Sydney: Allen and  Unwin.

   

  Garrison, D.R. (1993). A cognitive constructivist view of distance  education: An analysis of teaching-learning assumptions. Distance Education,  14(2), 199-211.

   

  Garrison, D.R. (1996). Computer conferencing and distance  education: Cognitive and social presence issues. In The new learning  environment: A global perspective. Proceedings of the ICDE World Conference.  Pittsburgh, PA: Pennsylvania State University.

   

  Garrison, D.R. (1997). Computer conferencing: The post-industrial  age of distance education. Open Learning, June, pp. 3-11.

   

  Hammersley, M. (1990). Reading ethnographic research: A critical  guide. London: Longman.

   

  Harasim, L.M. (Ed.). (1990). Online education: Perspectives on a  new environment. New York: Praeger.

   

  Harasim, L.M., Hiltz, S.R., Teles, L., & Turoff, M. (1995).  Learning networks: A field guide to teaching and learning online.  Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

   

  Henri, F., & Rigault, C. (1996). Collaborative distance  education and computer conferencing. In T Liao (Ed.), Advanced educational  technology: research issues and future potential (pp. 45-76). Berlin:  Springer-Verlag.

   

  Hiltz, S.R. (1994). The virtual classroom: Learning without  limits via computer networks. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

   

  Hiltz, S.R. (1986). The virtual classroom: Using computer mediated  communication for university teaching. Journal of Communication, 36(2),  95-104.

   

  Jonassen, D., Prevish, T., Christy, D., & Stavrulaki, E.  (1999). Learning to solve problems on the web: Aggregate planning in a business  management course. Distance Education, 20(1), 49-65.

   

  Kanuka, H., & Anderson, T. (1998). Online social interchange,  discord, and knowledge construction. Canadian Journal of Distance Education,  13(1), 57-74.

   

  Kaye, A.R. (1992). Learning together apart. In A.R. Kaye (Ed.),  Collaborative learning through computer conferencing (pp. 1-24). London:  Springer-Verlag.

   

  Knowles, M. (1990). The adult learner. A neglected species.  Houston, TX: Gulf.

   

  Mason R. (1990) Computer conferencing in distance education. In  A.W. Bates (Ed.), Media and technology in European distance education  (pp. 221-226). Milton Keynes, UK: Open University.

   

  Mason, R., & Kaye, A.R. (1990). Towards a new paradigm for  distance education. In L.M. Harasim (Ed.), Online education: Perspectives on  a new environment (pp. 279- 288). New York: Praeger.

   

  Oliver, R., & Omari, A. (1999). Using online technologies to  support problem based learning: Learners’ responses and perceptions.  Australian Journal of Educational Technology, 58-79.

   

  Naidu, S. (1997). Collaborative reflective practice: An  instructional design architecture for the Internet. Distance Education  18(2), 257-283.

   

  Shimahara, N. (1988). Anthroethnography: A methodological  consideration. In R.R. Sherman & R.B. Webb (Eds.), Qualitative research  in education: Focus and methods (pp. 76-89). Lewes, UK: Falmer Press.

   

  Stacey, E. (1997). A virtual campus: The experiences of  postgraduate students studying through electronic communication and resource  access [on-line]. Available: RMITultibase:  http://ultibase.rmit.edu.au/Articles/stace1.html

   

  Stacey, E. (1998). Learning at a virtual campus: Deakin  University’s experience as a dual mode university. In F. Verdejo & G. Davies  (Eds.), The virtual campus. Trends for higher education and training (pp.  39-49). London: Chapman & Hall.

   

  Thorpe, M. (1998). Assessment and “third generation” distance  education. Distance Education, 19(2), 265-286.

   

  Vygotsky, L.S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of  higher psychological processes. (M.M. Lopez-Morillas Cole, A.R. Luria &  J. Wertsch, J. Trans.). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

  • According to ten C’s since the title, author, and publication is listed. You can apply critical think skills to this source. But it’s updated in the recently, connectivity is good more than one user can uses site at a time. Its references give credibility to citation and it copy righted by Journal of Distance Education. It’s comparability it’s a website that is basically the article digitized. The context of the site is good you can find anything about internet collaboration helping student be successful.

  • gives references on where it got its information supporting its creditability.
• © Journal of Distance Education/Revue de l'enseignement à  distance

  • Copyrighted by Distance Education which supports its credibilty.

10 more annotations...

• Creating Effective Collaborative Learning Groups in an Online Environment

  • Title of the article
• Jane E. Brindley and Christine Walti
   University of Oldenburg, Germany
• Lisa M. Blaschke
   University of Maryland University College, USA

  • the authors of the source
    
• Collaborative learning in an online classroom can take the form of discussion among the whole class or within smaller groups. This paper addresses the latter, examining first whether assessment makes a difference to the level of learner participation and then considering other factors involved in creating effective collaborative learning groups.
• Online courses offer the opportunity to create a highly social learning environment, characterized by participation and interactivity for both students and instructors.

• Specific pedagogical benefits of collaborative learning include the following:

    
   
  • Development of critical thinking skills,
   
  • Co-creation of knowledge and meaning,
   
  • Reflection,
   
  • Transformative learning. (Palloff & Pratt, 2005)
• Different learning styles and cultures can be accommodated more easily because effective collaborative learning values diversity
• One proposed method of ensuring learner participation in online collaboration is to demonstrate the value of group learning by assessing (defined here as assignment of a grade) both the product and process of group work (Swan, Shen, & Hiltz, 2006).
• In a collaborative learning environment, knowledge is shared or transmitted among learners as they work towards common learning goals, for example, a shared understanding of the subject at hand or a solution to a problem.

• learner-learner interactions in an e-learning course can be viewed as a four stage continuum:

    
   
  1. Communication
       People ‘talking,’ discussing
     
  2. Collaboration
       People sharing ideas and working together (occasionally sharing resources) in a loose environment
     
  3. Cooperation
       People doing things together, but each with his or her own purpose
     
  4. Community
       People striving for a common purpose
• This continuum of involvement provides a useful framework for thinking about scaffolding with learners through progressively more complex interaction skills leading to the creation of an effective working group.

  • This article basically about the effectiveness of collaborative learning for students in online courses.

  • According to ten C's since the title, author, and publication is listed. You can apply critical think skills to this source. But it's updated in the recently, connectivity is good more than one user can uses site at a time. It's comparability it's a web that is basically has article digitized. The context of the site is good you can find anything about effectiveness of collaborative learning in online classes.

• References

    

  Beaudoin, M. (2003). Learning or lurking? Tracking the 'invisible' online student. In U. Bernath & E. Rubin (Eds.), Reflections on teaching and learning in an online master program (pp. 121-130). Oldenburg: Bibliotheks- und Informationssystem der Universität Oldenburg.

    

  Bouchat, C. (2007, December 17). Threaded discussion tips for designers. Learning Solutions e-Magazine. Retrieved January 31, 2008 through personal subscription to The eLearning Guild.

    

  Brookfield, S. D. (1995). Becoming a critically reflective teacher. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

    

  Chapman, C., Ramondt, L., & Smiley, G. (2005). Strong community, deep learning: Exploring the link. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 47(3), 217-230.

    

  Chen, P., Gonyea, R., & Kuh, G. (2008). Learning at a distance: Engaged or not? Innovate, 4(3). Retrieved February 26, 2008, from http://www.innovateonline.info/index.php?view=article&id=438&action=article

    

  Christiensen, E., & Dirkinick-Holmfeld, L. (1995). Making distance learning cooperative. Retrieved May 19, 2008, from http://vbn.aau.dk/research/making_distance_learning_collaborative(125626)/

    

  Curtis, D. D., & Lawson, M. J. (2001). Exploring collaborative online learning. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 5(1), 21-34.

    

  Harasim, L., Hiltz, S. R., Teles, L., & Turoff, M. (1998). Learning networks: A field guide to teaching and learning online. Cambridge, MA/London, England: The MIT Press.

    

  Jonassen, D., Davidson, M., Collins, M., Campbell, J., & Haag, B.  (1995). Constructivism and computer mediated communication in distance education.  American Journal of Distance Education, 9(2), 7-25.

    

  Juwah, C. (2006). Interactions in online peer learning. In R.C. Sharma & C. Juwah (Eds.) Interactions in online education. Implications for theory and practice (pp. 171-190). New York: Lawrence Erlbaum.

    

  Kearsley, G. (2000). Online education: Learning and teaching in cyberspace. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

    

  Kearsley, G. (nd). Tips for training online instructors. Retrieved May 26, 2008, from http://home.sprynet.com/~gkearsley/OItips.htm

    

  Kop, R., & Hill, A. (2008).  Connectivism:  Learning theory of the future or vestige of the past?  International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 9(3).  Retrieved January 20, 2009, from http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl

    

  Lin, L. (2008). An online learning model to facilitate learners’ rights to education. Journal for Asynchronous Learning Networks, 12(1). Retrieved May 17, 2008, from http://www.distanceandaccesstoeducation.org/Results.aspx?searchMode=3&criteria=en

    

  Palloff, R. M., & Pratt, K. (1999). Building learning communities in cyberspace: Effective strategies for the online classroom. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

    

  Palloff, R. M., & Pratt, K. (2005). Collaborating online: Learning together in community. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

    

  Porto, S., Bernath, U., & Walti, C. (2006). MDE program self-assessment report for the EFMD CEL accreditation. Oldenburg, Germany. http://www.c3l.uni-oldenburg.de/literat/EFMDfinalrevised.pdf

    

  Sanders, M. (2008, Feb. 18). A failure to collaborate. The Chronicle of Higher Education. First Person. Retrieved February 18, 2008, through personal account.

    

  Siemens, G. (2005). Connectivism:  Learning theory for the digital age.  International Journal of Instructional Technology and Distance Learning, 2(1), January 2005. Retrieved May 25, 2008, from http://www.itdl.org/Journal/Jan_05/index.htm

    

  Siemens, G. (2002).  Interaction. E-Learning Course. October 8, 2002. Retrieved May 19, 2008, from http://www.elearnspace.org/Articles/Interaction.htm

    

  Shaw, S. (2006). New reality: Workplace collaboration is crucial. Eedo Knowledgeware Whitepaper. Retrieved through personal subscription.

    

  Smith, L. (2003). Assessing student needs in an online graduate program. In U. Bernath & E. Rubin (Eds.), Reflections on teaching and learning in an online master program - A case study (pp. 255- 265). Oldenburg: Bibliotheks- und Informationssystem der Universität Oldenburg.

    

  Swan, K. (2001). Virtual interaction: Design factors affecting students’ satisfaction and perceived learning in asynchronous online courses. Distance Education, 22(2), 306-331.

    

  Swan, K., Shen, J., & Hiltz, S.R. (2006). Assessment and collaboration in online learning. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 10(1), 45-62.

              <script type="text/javascript">  var addthis_pub = 'terrya@athabascau.ca';  </script>

  • reference for further informtion and to support its credibilty.

10 more annotations...