· Open Threaded Discussions (i.e. chronological, interface can get messy) Clapp: impressed by open threaded discussion of class expectations which could offer amendments to a course expectation if everyone in the class ‘liked’ it.)

· Un-moderated Voice Thread (chronological, best for sharing local opinions, not appropriate for key questions because the students will agree with earlier statements or argue there is nothing more to say.)

· Moderated Voice Thread (good for specific questions because students do not see others’ answers until revealed by teacher after all have participated)

· Googledocs (collaborative, shareable docs, no threading, all discussion is visible, ala Harkness discussion: highly democratic form, layered multi-dimensional in that you can comment directly on the text (in a different font color, in the margin, or on the comments of others in the margins. Tracks changes.

· Google Groups (threaded discussion ala Haiku embeddable in Haiku mini-sites, notifications according to individualized preferences, mobile phone feature not available in Haiku, yet)

· Google Moderator (threaded, adds voting component which allows additional interactivity)

· Google+ Community (Click on +Name in email box, Hangouts IMs, Circles: Grouping people according to how you know them, can send email to individual circle members or enmasse (like your class), a great place to aggregate external resources and talk about them, +1= LIKE, Bell in right upper corner for chronological updates)

Jake Clapp on Discussions

· Skype (for one on one sessions, nice place to ask for emotional response)

· impressed by open threaded discussion of class expectations which could offer amendments to a course expectation if everyone in the class liked it.

Organize:

1) a 20-30min three-way discussion with all members of your group OR

2) two 15-20min one-on-one discussions with each member of your group.

What mode(s) of discussion should the teacher use based on her goals? Think about what each of the four discussions might look like - what tool should she use for each scenario and why? (My Debate Assignment)

Case: Jackie is teaching an online course about evolutionary biology. Her students have just finished reading a series of articles (see links here if you’re curious!) about a controversy amongst contemporary evolutionary biologists regarding Kin Selection and genetic theory.

· http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2012/jun/24/battle-of-the-professors

At root it is a dispute about whether natural selection, the theory of "the survival of the fittest" first put forward by Charles Darwin in 1859, occurs only to preserve the single gene. Wilson is an advocate of "multi-level selection theory", a development of the idea of "kin selection", which holds that other biological, social and even environmental priorities may be behind the process.

But Dawkins is far from convinced: "Wilson now rejects 'kin selection' and replaces it with a revival of 'group selection' – the poorly defined and incoherent view that evolution is driven by the differential survival of whole groups of organisms."

the central problem is the impossibility of defining "fitness", whether in organisms, organs, cells, genes or even gene regulatory DNA regions.

There is no such thing as a good or bad gene. It doesn't work that simply. Genes are used and re-used in different contexts, each of which might have a different overall fitness value for a given organism or a group. (Guardian 6-23-12)

· http://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/magazine/edward-wilson-social-conquest-earth-evolutionary-errors-origin-species/

Wilson now rejects “kin selection” (I shall explain this below) and replaces it with a revival of “group selection”—the poorly defined and incoherent view that evolution is driven by the differential survival of whole groups of organisms.

What is controversial is the idea that differential group survival drives evolution, as differential individual survival does.

The American grey squirrel is driving our native red squirrel to extinction, no doubt because it happens to have certain advantages. That’s differential group survival. But you’d never say of any part of a squirrel that it evolved to promote the welfare of the grey squirrel over the red.

At stake is the level at which Darwinian selection acts: “survival of the fittest” but the fittest what? The fittest gene, individual, group, species, ecosystem?

the gene is on its own as a “replicator,” with its own unique status as a unit of Darwinian selection. Genes, but no other units in life’s hierarchy, make exact copies of themselves in a pool of such copies. It therefore makes a long-term difference which genes are good at surviving and which ones bad. You cannot say the same of individual organisms (they die after passing on their genes and never make copies of themselves). Nor does it apply to groups or species or ecosystems. None make copies of themselves. None are replicators. Genes have that unique status.

A gene’s success depends on the survival and reproduction of the bodies in which it sits, and which it influences via “phenotypic” effects. This is why I have called the organism a “survival machine” or “vehicle” for the genes that ride inside it.

Genes that happen to cause slight improvements in squirrel eyes or tails or behaviour patterns are passed on because individual squirrels bearing those improving genes survive at the expense of individuals lacking them. To say that genes improve the survival of groups of squirrels is a mighty stretch.

Here are the four corresponding scenarios, each with a unique goal in mind. In addition to discussing which tool to use (Google Doc, Haiku discussion, etc.) for each scenario, we will talk about other attributes that would bring life and rigor to your discussions.

I am assuming that I am teaching a group of talented 10^th graders who are bright but undisciplined and therefore need a lot of structure.

Scenario 1: Jackie wants to give students an opportunity to ask questions about the two readings. (She wants relatively quick ‘turn-around time’. In other words, the span of time between when student poses question and she is able to respond should be as short as possible.)

Discussion Mode for Q and A:

1. Introduce the topic, reading assignment, debate format, and position paper product. Tell the kids that there will be assessments at various points along the way to make sure that the group does not dump all the responsibility for preparation on one guy. (Synchronous Triggering discussion via Google Hangouts)

2. Give all the students ample opportunities for initial questions.

3. Break the class into two groups, but do not tell them which side of the debate they will be arguing.

4. Ask students to complete the reading assignment and complete study guide for the next meeting. during which a quiz will be administered. (Asynchronous Guided Exploration via Googledocs Study Guide)

Scenario 2: Jackie wants the students to share their individual opinions about the controversy.

Discussion Mode for Individual Opinion:

5. Students gather for timed quiz which asks questions which enable kids to infer and integrate ideas from the study guide. (Synchronous Moderated Voice Thread)

6. Students generate debate resolution in discussion, (Synchronous Google Hangout)

7. Teacher announces which of the two groups will be arguing for the Affirmative and which the Negative.

8. Tell students that their debate speeches will be graded. Remind them that speech delivery counts as much as content in their 3 to 5 minute openings. Remind them as well that 2 minute rebuttals will be delivered live and their improvised responses will count as much as their opening speeches. Emphasize as well that the students can earn bonus points for teamwork. Remind them of debate etiquette: no ab hominem attacks.

Scenario 3: Jackie wants to split the class into 2 arbitrary groups and have the groups debate the controversy.

Discussion Mode for Debate:

9. Planning the debate will take place in a couple of stages. First the students meet via Google Hangout to divide up responsibilities and assign roles. With unlimited money, a student-mentor (coach) could be assigned to each group to monitor their progress. Otherwise, a team captain is assigned who will report to the teacher about progress.

10. An online list of excellent references to the debate topic and debate strategy is included. (Asunchronous Googledocs)

11. The student writes his/her individual speech, and rehearses it online (via Asynchronous Un-Moderated voice thread).

12. Encourage students to share comments and suggestions after reviewing each other’s speeches and anticipating rebuttal. (Google Hangout)

13. The actual debate proper takes place. (Synchronous Google Hangout)

14. Students receive Debate grade.

Scenario 4: Jackie would like her students to work in small groups on position papers responding to one or more arguments made in the articles with their own well-reasoned arguments.

Small Group Position Papers:

15. Teacher re-divides the students into four groups, each with a player from each side of the debate.

16. Groups are assigned four different position paper topics related to the debate topic. Students meet to discuss the paper topics in groups and divide up responsibilities. (Google Hangout)

17. Students write four position papers. Each group writes one ‘group essay’ via Googledocs.

18. Students meet to devise rough draft and discuss ways to improve the paper. (Google Hangout and Googledocs)

19. Essays are turned in for grading via Googledrive.

Sharing your reaction: Pick one of your group members to be the "note-taker" or "scribe". This person will post your group's thoughts to the discussion forum after you "hangout". Then each person in this class should read each of the group's posts and simply respond to remarks that resonate with you. Access to the discussion forum is in the content block at the top, right hand side of this page. Some questions to get you thinking:

· What points came out of the Hangout that were memorable for you?

· What are the most important considerations when planning a discussion in an online course?

· What possibilities do these modes of discussion offer that a real-time class discussion can't?

· Which modes seem most effective to your own teaching and classroom? Why?

Goals:

· Great content cannot overcome an ineffective web interface. The medium of delivery should become transparent to the content. To that end, course materials need to be developed and integrated before the course is even offered.

· Learning groups, activities and situations put the students in charge of their own learning

· Create a safe environment for the kids: emphasize the importance of participation in asynchronous communication forms. Set standard of respect for interaction on the web to decrease the tendency toward flaming. See Amy Hollinger’s opening video on expectations.

· It is not sufficient to be a content expert. Nor is it sufficient to be “tech-savvy”. It is not even sufficient to be an excellent traditional classroom teacher. The online world is a categorically different environment which requires a particular blend of skills and knowledge.

· The best online courses blend synchronous plans, which stimulate and motivate students as a group via personal participation, with asynchronous plans which allow the individual student to process information and develop more thoughtful responses to course questions.

· The best courses themselves are created through collaboration among a community of experts: not only the content expert but also the instructional designer, editor, team manager, graphics and media designer, webmaster, library consultant and external reviewer.

· Asynchronous Lessons:

o The teacher can help students by clarifying “what the student should be able to do, the conditions under which the student should produce the desired behavior and how well the student must be able to perform it.”

§ Introductory videos via Youtube.

§ A course calendar (bulletin): Monthly Bulletin in Word with Tables to trace the two to three weeks of the project. See Google Calendar. See Gantt Chart Templates

§ The course site needs to be navigable via a variety of learning paths: video, graphics and auditory as well as texts so that the student can select his/her own preferred method for processing information. See Course Navigation

o Students should be able to find their own ways through the site and proceed on course goals at their own pace. (So, for instance, if the kid struggles with the reading, he can watch the video, get a sense of the territory but then, hopefully, go back to the text…)

o The student can access course materials at any time and therefore can manage his or her time more flexibly.

o Asynchronous Communication typically takes place via discussion board and email (Use the cell phone as a last resort typically to offer immediate assistance and to organize synchronous meetings.) Discussion Board example

· Synchronous lessons

o These meetings serve the course by providing opportunities for students to bond in teams. These moments are great for introducing new exciting challenges and allowing kids to ask questions before they get started. If the teacher can create a sense of community, the students can then take charge of their own learning.

o On projects students need to meet remotely before doing presentations and/or posting to the course web for asynchronous review.

o Synchronous communication via Google Hangouts: download this small plugin and go to gmail.com. (The Missing Guide for Google Hangout Video Calls) (Initiating and Accepting a Video Chat through Gmail). Video Conferencing Facilitators (LMS) are not offered by Haiku but are included in Canvas

o Set meeting schedule via Doodle.com

o For Orientation purposes a variety of ‘getting to know you’ activities are recommended. (These would be fun even in the brick and mortar classroom.)

§ Locating each other via Googlemaps imbedded within a Word table,

§ Post a Google Doc Contact Sheet; Time Zone Converter

§ Post short video introductions via Flipgrid,

§ Encourage email communication on one dedicated Gmail account.

§ Discussion Boards (See Discussion Board example in Haiku),

§ Polls (Haiku)

Notes on Readings:

#1 Considerations Regarding Synchronous versus Asynchronous Delivery (or Both), VCU Center for Teaching Excellence

Research has shown that while both synchronous and asynchronous communications have their places in the online classroom, adult learners prefer asynchronous communication for its flexibility and the perception that asynchronous communication allows more time for reflective thinking.

Synchronous meetings help students would stay on task better and enable the students to take advantage of the teacher’s expertise in content and at discussion facilitation.

These meetings are harder to set up on line because global students come from different time zones.

· Introductions- This might include a full biography or a short "getting-to-know-you" series of questions. Allow people to make themselves known as living individuals behind the emotionless technology medium.

· Identify with the group- encourage ‘commonalities’ . If this sense of group identity is not established, the likelihood of poor participation or attrition increases.

· Interact- Members will start interacting with one another in reference to the community's established focus and begin to share information with one another. This is where students really begin to discuss course content, brainstorm ideas, ask questions and ‘think out loud’.

#2 Stefan Hratinski , Asynchronous vs. Synchronous Online Learning, Educause Quarterly Number 4 (2008)

Description: Description: Description: Description: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Bq6yo_nCYAEeavF.png:large

Introduction

Web 2.0: Using the web to support social relations

Increased bandwidth has enabled the development of synchronous learning environments. Learning is best achieved by complementing the student’s time in asynchronous contemplation with opportunities for dialogue once ideas have begun to germinate.

Asynchronous learning (email, discussion board) is convenient for the learner who can organize study time around a flexible schedule. It also allows the student to develop a considered, more thoughtful response than he/she might have in synchronous discussion.

Synchronous learning (video conferencing, chat) benefits from being more social and allows the student to get instant responses to questions. The student joins a community.

The key for the educator is to understand when, why and how to use these teaching modes.

Three Types of Communication

· Content related (share information, express ideas, ask questions)

· Planning of tasks (allocating tasks, coordinate effort, review drafts)

· Social support (praise, empathy for problems, non-shop talk)

Research Background

· Individual Interviews with participants classified according to the groups above.

Results:

The study indicates that asynchronous learning stimulated the vast majority of content related responses. It enables students to process information more effectively. However, these students also feel isolated from the community necessary for collaborative learning. Synchronous learning sessions provided opportunities for planning collaborative tasks. It serves as an opportunity to get students excited about projects. Achieving ‘psychological arousal’ is easier if students can see and respond to faces and body language. Synchronous meetings also feel more like talking, and provide opportunities for social support and non-course related interaction. We speak more directly to each other and expect responses.

#3 A. Darabi, M.C. Arrastia, D.W. Nelson, T. Cornille & X. Liang , Cognitive presence in asynchronous online learning: a comparison of four discussion strategies, Florida State University, FL

Structured threads: triggering events

Scaffolded threads: resolution

Debate and role-playing: exploration and integration

Traditional question and answer exchanges between teacher and students are not as successful online. The students need to experience the phases of cognitive presence: triggering events, exploration, integration and resolution, which are crucial for deep knowledge construction.

Testing four scenario-based online discussion strategies – structured, scaffolded, debate and role play.

Cognitive presence is achieved via triggering event (introduction of assignment; clarifying and restating information), exploration (testing hypotheses; sharing personal experiences, opinions and resources.), integration (reflection on outcomes; suggesting new solutions and drawing hypotheses from the information gathered) and resolution (final discussion of potential solutions; applying, testing and defending the hypotheses)

The study found that structured threads or catechisms, while highly associated with triggering events, produced no discussion pertaining to the resolution phase. The scaffolded strategy, on the other hand, showed a strong association with the resolution phase. The debate and role-play strategies were highly associated with exploration and integration phases. We concluded that discussion strategies should require learners to take a perspective in an authentic scenario to facilitate cognitive presence, and thus critical thinking and higher levels of learning.

Online goal: match the rich interaction which takes place between teacher, learner and content that takes place in the traditional classroom, missing are the non-verbal expressions and rapid interchanges, the insight-producing spontaneity and continuous feedback of in-depth face-to-face interaction and reach for the higher levels of learning as analysing, evaluating, and creating, and the lower levels as remembering, understanding, and applying.

The community of inquiry and cognitive presence

a socially interactive context using critical thinking to achieve higher-level learning as the goal of online education

Pre-structured threads: which rely only on well-written questions that guide learners into asking more questions does not lead students beyond the exploration phase. This approach stimulates the expression of opinion, but the real goal is to facilitate integration of the student’s ideas with others’ to achieve resolution of their differences

If the online learning environment provides learners with a specific discussion context and goal corresponding to authentic situations and anchored in the real-world tasks, then the construction of knowledge can occur.

Each approach to structuring discussion offers both opportunities and drawbacks:

· Pre-structured threads: the instructor provides a series of detailed prompts, increased the frequency of discussion posts that initiated meaningful discourse, ‘online scaffolds’ which anticipate difficulties. Ther problem is, though, that in developing the prompts, the instructor might not correctly anticipate the difficulties learners will have in advancing the discussion.

· Scaffolding, described as having a teacher or a mentor ask probing questions throughout the discussion in response to learners’ postings, for instance, realigning it to the intended direction if it goes astray, produced higher-level reflection

· Role playing, discussions with role assignments in authentic scenarios which typically involve specific roles in the online discussion process but can also involve playing roles in a simulation of practitioners solving authentic problems. However one most strive to avoid the meta-cognitive knowledge dilemma which arises if arise if learners have insufficient domain knowledge. i.e. they don’t know what they are talking about.

· Ideally debate enables the learners to confront inconsistencies in reasoning, and ideally resolving differences between perspectives.. However, the learner may be arguing a position which he already holds which prevents the examination of the problem from another perspective.

Method

· The data was created by the test administrators assigning responses to the 16 subcategories of cognitive presence segments, each of which was coded as 1 of the 16 subcategories

· Tabulation of data took place via a process of analysis which transforms qualitative data into quantitative data through coding and ratings by multiple raters, all subject to a goodness-of-fit test. Data collected from students via the university’s online course management system, Blackboard

· Breaking a group of 79 students into small groups led by a mentor, each group was randomly assigned to one of the four discussion strategies developed for performing this discussion task.

· Students divided into mentor/ six student groups and assigned one method randomly.

· Discussion task : the scenario was a decision- making problem, a rational choice model in which learners compare the advantages and disadvantages of alternative solutions

· A school district committee required to choose an appropriate intervention for a social problem considering its associated risk factors: Learners applied concepts, such as population risk level, relative risk factor, intervention level, and target system – all part of the readings and lectures for that week – based on which they recommended an intervention

· Participants discussed the problem within the 1-week time limit and were encouraged to come to a consensus- based conclusion

The Four Discussion Strategies:

· Structured Thread: ‘What problem or risk factor will your intervention focus on? In which system does this problem or risk factor take place? Which intervention idea do you agree with? Which has the best rationale given the resources given to your group? Why?

· Scaffolded. For this strategy we chose student mentors to scaffold the discussion as opposed to the instructor because students generally prefer peer discussion leaders. These trained mentors, who had debated the problem amongst themselves, were asked to raise questions after each posting deadline to help direct students toward achieving consensus.

· Debate: participants strategy were randomly assigned one of two positions, each arguing for or against the appropriateness of a given intervention

· Role Playing: Students had to assume the role of a professional in their field, such as teacher, adviser, counsellor, or policymaker. These roles were suggested, but the students were able to choose any other role as well. The participants were then instructed to perform the discussion task from the perspective of their particular roles and then try to integrate differing perspectives into a resolution.

Results: the debate and role-play groups included more learners than the scaffolded and structured groups

· Structured thread: Research has shown that simply posing questions for learners to answer does not elicit the same higher-level learning that in-depth face-to-face interaction produces. Without substantive interaction among online learners, focusing on integrating information and synthesizing ideas, development of higher level knowledge is limited. Higher level knowledge usually occurs as the result of collaboration of instructor, student, content and environment. Even though the prompts of the structured strategy were intended to direct the learners to think deeply about their responses, the prompts apparently could not substitute for the engaging elements required to advance to the resolution phase as the other strategies did. The structured thread approach is best used when associated with the exploration and integration phases.

· The scaffolded strategy, was strongly associated with all of the phases of cognitive presence. The student mentors made the discussion task more complex by leading the discussion towards the latter phases of cognitive presence. The mentors’ orientation prepared them for their interaction with learners. They were then responsible for monitoring learners’ interactions, inspecting their postings and guiding the discussion towards a consensus achieved together . The learners using this strategy generated a highest percentage of segments associated with the resolution phase, hence the importance of providing learners with the involvement of a designated authority in a pedagogical role.

· Debaters had to interact, take a position, and own it so they had to explore and integrate the content in preparing their argument. This seems to be the reason for learners generating the highest number of segments in the exploration and integration phases. Throughout the debate they examined, compared and contrasted alternative solutions through which they were exposed to the complexity of critical thinking about solving the problem. They exerted efforts to justify their positions.

· In the role-play strategy, learners assumed a meaningful role and argued for a position representing the role while considering others’ perspectives on how to solve the problem. This strategy also generated a high number of posting segments particularly during the integration phase.. This strategy exposed the learners to intricacies of critical thinking and, similarly to the debate strategy, resulted in higher levels of cognitive presence.

When participants face their counterparts who address the same complex scenario with different causal reasoning, their exposure to multiple perspectives extends their understanding of the problem and expands their cognitive presence for resolving it.

Conclusions:

The findings indicate that a discussion strategy engaging learners in meaningful interaction and instructional experiences should contribute to learners’ achievement of higher-level learning. For example, when the learning material is first being introduced, the instructor should provide the learners with pre-structured threads to guide the learner within the model of practical inquiry starting with triggering events. After initial discussion, the learners may feel more comfortable with the material and the process, and they can continue discussing given a role-play or forced debate discussion task. With a discussion situated in an authentic task, the learners are free to explore the material and integrate their findings through group discussion. To prevent learners from abandoning their efforts and to encourage them to fully think through their assumptions and findings, a mentor or the instructor should scaffold the discussion by posting meaning- ful questions and leading the discussion towards resolution and consensus.

Ideal: the learner is exposed to all strategies and can flow from one phase to another and back to previous phases when necessary. Social presence is best exploited towards the conclusion of the lesson. Do not engage students and create a social presence without reaching the latter phases of cognitive presence.)

Video: Eight Modes of Discussion

· Google Hangouts (ice breaker, place for discussion in resolution phase)

· Moderated Voice Thread (good for specific questions because students do not see others’ answers until revealed by teacher after all have expressed ideas)

· Googledocs (collaborative, shareable docs, no threading, all discussion is visible, ala Harkness discussion: highly democratic form, layered multi-dimensional in that you can comment directly on the desk (in a different font color) or on the comments of others in the margins

· Google Groups (threaded discussion ala Haiku embeddable in Haiku mini-sites, notifications according to individualized preferences, mobile phone feature not available in Haiku, yet)

· Google Moderator (threaded, adds voting component which allows additional interactivity)

Jake Clapp on Discussions

· Skype (for one on one sessions, nice place to ask for emotional response)

· impressed by open threaded discussion of class expectations which could offer amendments to a course expectation if everyone in the class liked it.

2.D DISCUSS SYNCHROUNOUS AND ASYNCHRONOUS MODES OF DISCUSSION (6/26-6/28)

For this synchronous discussion assignment, I have divided you into groups of three (see below). Your task is to use Google's video chat tool, Hangouts, to have EITHER 1) a 20-30min three-way discussion with all members of your group OR 2) two 15-20min one-on-one discussions with each member of your group.

Planning the conversation:

Anyone in the group may initiate first contact, but you should plan to have your conversation(s) completed by 11:59pm EST on Saturday, June 28. When you schedule your Hangout(s), one member should volunteer to initiate. Please refer to the shared spreadsheet (Welcome Page) for time zone information, GOA email addresses, and phone numbers. If you need to do a little time zone translation, I recommend this converter.

Preparing for the conversation: For each scenario, decide what mode(s) of discussion the teacher should use based on her goals. Think about what each of the four discussions might look like - what tool should she use for each scenario and why?

Setting up the conversation:

When it is time to have your conversation, both the INITIATOR and the ACCEPTER(S) should follow the instructions outlined HERE. As you familiarize yourself with Google Hangouts, you will learn that there are a number of other ways to initiate and receive a Hangout invitation, but this one seems to be the easiest.

NOTE: If you are participating in a three-way discussion, it is sometimes easier to invite the third participant into the discussion once the first two have already joined. There is an "Invite" button in the top left corner of all Hangouts.

Participating in the conversations: You should discuss the following scenarios:

First, introduce yourself by sharing where you work and your role.

· http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2012/jun/24/battle-of-the-professors

· http://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/magazine/edward-wilson-social-conquest-earth-evolutionary-errors-origin-species/

Here are the four corresponding scenarios, each with a unique goal in mind. In addition to discussing which tool to use (Google Doc, Haiku discussion, etc..) for each scenario, we will talk about other attributes that would bring life and rigor to your discussions.

Scenario 2: Jackie wants the students to share their individual opinions about the controversy.

Scenario 3: Jackie wants to split the class into 2 arbitrary groups and have the groups debate the controversy.

Scenario 4: Jackie would like her students to work in small groups on position papers responding to one or more arguments made in the articles with their own well-reasoned arguments.

· What points came out of the Hangout that were memorable for you?

· What are the most important considerations when planning a discussion in an online course?

· What possibilities do these modes of discussion offer that a real-time class discussion can't?

· Which modes seem most effective to your own teaching and classroom? Why?:

Group Assignments:

· Kevin O'Brien, Tracy Deeter, Christine Hunter, Michelle Murphy

· Kevin Conway, Adam Ross, Eryn Hoffman

· David Sainsily, Joanna Osario, Michael Ehrenfried

· Kathleen Ralf, Jon Rice, Jamie Spragins, Matt Honohan

· Erin Maretzki, Carol Lattimore, Chris Young

I hope you will find this exercise valuable in a number of ways:

· Appreciating the importance of seeing your classmates face to face for meaningful conversation

· Familiarizing yourself with Google Hangouts

· Understanding differences between in-person and video conversations

· Overcoming the challenge of time difference, competing schedules, and asynchronous communication in setting up the Hangout