Carl Morten
Grand Canyon University:UNV 502
April 16, 2014

Read-Only Participants

On-line learning Community To an on-line community communication is important and interpersonal communication describes one of the process of communicating ideas, thoughts, and feelings to other people and groups also develop skills that will improve a participants practice and knowledge as an online participant within a community. However Read-Only Participants authors express a wider concern for student communication in online classes. The authors express many discussions, questions, methods, findings, and implication with communication online disrupting the formation of virtual learning community.

The context of the study discussion involved an online course on web-based education for a Masters degree with a mixed methodology approach to observe how online pursuit and discussion relate to course completion and learning skills. The researchers work showed an increase with online enrollment, but a decline in retention and success, even lower than traditional classroom settings. Those who hold the roles of facilitators have a responsibility to reversing such trends according to Schreck (2006). There are many misconceptions and myths concerning the difficulty of both learning and teaching online some attribute it to the methods of technology (e-books, podcasting, and simulations), Student continue to drop out at alarming rate yet keep pleading for more online learning experiences (Bonk, 2002). Other scholars finding such drop-out rate for online student that varies from 20% to 50%, often up to 20% more than contact courses (Bernard, Brauer, Abrami, & Surks, 2004). Bernard found that students mind set can foretell readiness for effective learning and the outcome (Bernard et al., 2004).
The question is how does the participation influence the learning community?
A Learning management system (LMS) tracks such data as progress and performance for those students who do not log-in or log-in and do not participate in their online classes. Klemm imply or blame classroom based teaching where students have the expectation to be entertained to motivate them to no effort learning (Klemm, 1998). Other implications are pointing to procrastination, feelings of isolation, and not understanding the use of the technology (Miller, Rainer, & Corley, 2003). The authors also assert that it’s not the students alone but indicate facilitator’s participation plays a vital role in collaboration, learning and success in course completion. The students become more motivated from a facilitator’s involvement and participation (Collison et al., 2000). Observation showed that students with lower post or replied less as unsuccessful and the successful student interacted and achieved more, showing read-only participants replied less than they posted, which is also associated with lurking (loping) (Davies & Graff, 2005).

Conclusion: Evidence showed by the authors indicates that interacting with facilitators and participation with community in ideas, thoughts, and communication builds trust and successful results, however read-only participants (loping) low online visibility and participant less or at risk of not completing the course and this low interaction of logging in result students missing the support needed for success (Davies & Graff, 2005).

References:

Bernard, R.M., Brauer, A., Abrami, P.C., & Surkes, M.(2004).The development of a

questionnaire for predicting online learning achievement.

Distance Education, 25(1), 31–47. Boud, D., Cohen, R., & Sampson, J. (1999). Peer learning and assessment. Assessment &Evaluation in Higher Education, 24(4), 413–426.

Bonk, C.J. (2004): “Online teaching in an online World” USDLA Journal, Vol. 16, NO 1, Jan 2002 < http://www.usdla.org/html/journalJan02_issue/article02.html
Davies, J., & Graff, M. (2005). Performance in e-learning: Online participation and student grades. British Journal of Educational Technology, 36(4), 657–663.
Klemm, W.R. (1998). Eight ways to get students more engaged in online conferences.

Technological Horizons in Education Journal, 26(1), 62–64.