13.13 :-) Sherri to Thomas' intro
13.13.1 :-? Cheryl

13.13.3 :-) Shyamala

Cheryl,

The point to be noted in Sherri's experience is that the levels of interaction are much higher than her experiances in F2Fclasses. This in turn has led to improved motivation and committment from team members.

This reflects better outcome of online classes vs F2F classes to me.

Shyamala.

• 13.13.10 :-? Tea

13.13.10 :-? Tea

Apologies to Thomas -- but I am not sure of the thread number, and as the numbers are not posted with the thread,locating the correct number is an awkward process. I will instead copy the statement I am referencing.

-------------------------------------------------------Shyamala Iyer wrote:

Cheryl Nadine Berthau wrote:I would like to suggest that what occurs in online discussions is a reduction in the spontaneous automatic response to astatement, rather than an increase in honesty. Online discussions do give people the opportunity to reflect on what theywill say rather than regretting what they have spontaneously spoken out about. However, are we more honest or justmore careful?

Cheryl,

The point to be noted in Sherri's experience is that the levels of interaction are much higher than her experiences in F2Fclasses. This in turn has led to improved motivation and commitment from team members.This reflects better outcome of online classes vs F2F classes to me.Shyamala.

Shyamala, I disagree with your statement. As I understand Sherri, she is saying that there is a decrease in spontaneity and thatthe lack of spontaneity creates a slower response. That our discussion is lively has much more to do with its longevity and the time available to the participants then its content. Example I the limited number of responses in the first two days. Example II: Anthony mentions that he hasmore time to respond this week, serendipitous as he has contributed greatly to this "conversation". Have our silentlearners contributed? No, those who will not speak in class appear not to speak here. So where is the higher level ofparticipation? Are the quiet ones learning less, only they can make that measurement. Face to face discussions offerthe opportunity for instructor control, while this asynchronous debate seems to have run amok, and the original topic hasbeen lost. In an online discussion people take the time to consider their answers, and for whatever reason: fear of criticism,irritation with an awkward procedure, lack of interest, or just inertia, many never respond at all. Perhaps for some theanonymity provides a shield that allows them to speak as never before, but do the constraints and procedures keepothers from participating? These are the questions that need to be resolved before we can answer Thomas's question.

Until we are able to set up trials and accumulate test data we cannot answer his question. So until I have the data to runa comparison, I would err on the side of 'real time' and say that if live discussions are not more productive, there is noway to justify calling them less productive and at best they must be viewed as possibly equal.

Tea