Collaborative Learning Environments

  • Upload
    chaman

  • View
    57

  • Download
    0

Embed Size (px)

DESCRIPTION

Collaborative Learning Environments. Jaunine Fouche Igino Sabucco Rebecca Streetman Cory Valentine. EDUC 730 Dr. Holder Liberty University Summer 2011. Collaborative Environments. - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Citation preview

  • EDUC 730Dr. HolderLiberty UniversitySummer 2011Jaunine FoucheIgino SabuccoRebecca StreetmanCory Valentine

  • Collaborative EnvironmentsCollaborative environments are online spaces where the focus is on making it easy to collaborate and work in groups, no matter where the participants may be

    Horizon Report2010 K-12 Edition

  • Why Collaborate?Students and teachers are now interacting from different locations at different timesStudies suggest that seeing and reading other group members ideas is thought to lead to mutual cognitive stimulationThere are indicators that this style of learning better reflects the real-world business environment; thus, it prepares students for the workplace global organizations working across time zonesstrict deadlines in the business world

  • Theoretical ImpactDeweyReflective inquiryCommunityVygotskyKnowledge construction occurs through reflective thinkingCommunication and collaboration with others

  • SocializationPre-requisite for effective collaborationAlso the outcome of collaborationPersistent throughout entire processStudies indicate that a simple icebreaker at the beginning of the process may not be sufficient in developing and maintaining mutual trust and social presence

  • Theoretical FrameworkCommunity of Inquiry(COI)

  • Explanation for FrameworkPrior research focused only on social presenceTeaching and learning elements must be included as well

  • Knowledge Creation Process

    SocializationExternalizationCombinationInternalization

  • Elements of a CLEDifferent verbiage within literature, but all agree that certain elements should be evaluated:Individual participationInteraction among group membersSocial cuesCognitive skillsMeta-cognitive skills & knowledge

  • How to Structure Collaborative EnvironmentsIn order to be effective, teachers should structure CLEs to include:Basic clarifications and identification of relevant elements (the problem is identified)In-depth clarifications where a deeper understanding of the problem is establishedInference where deductions are made in regards to solving the problemJudgment where the decision has been madeApplications where action occurs

  • Designed with Assessment in MindTeachers should design CLEs so that results can be easily translated into quantitative indicatorsEasy to acquireAvoid delays in mail deliveryEasy to processNeeds to allow for immediate feedback

  • SpecificsTeachers should not just look at participation alone:Extent of participationAttitudeExtent of rolesRhythm (regular participation)Reciprocal readingsDepth developmentResponsiveness to contributionsconclusiveness

  • The Missing PiecesMuch of the literature suggests assigning roles to group members:there is a clear benefit to having a defined management structure, with a precise division of tasks (Gosper, McNeill, & Woo, 2010)the project in this case would have clearly identified roles for easy allocation according to member strengths (Jones, 2010)But none of the literature we found indicates how to go about structuring those groups

  • Elements of an Effective GroupComfortable social atmosphereRegular group involvement from all membersConsideration of other group members

  • Blended FormatSome of the literature indicates that the most successful CLEs consists of a good mix of the following:Face-to-face meetingsOnline collaborationAsynchronous discussions

  • Face-to-Face (F2F)Something worth noting is that the literature actually indicates that a blended format is best.Studies have shown that F2F meetings at certain phases are criticalSynchronous interactions add a human touch that can be missed otherwise

  • Evolving ProcessAlso consistent throughout the literature is the fact that establishing success factors does not happen automatically nor is it predetermined at the onset of a project. They must be nurtured in order to evolve throughout the process and are based on the dedication and cooperation of all team members.

  • Teachers RoleEstablish clear indicators of successDistribute information to students on a regular basisProvide individualized responses to bridge gapsAssist in creating mutual trust among all studentsIdentify experts within each groupEnsure participation and interactivity

  • Initiating the ProjectDetermine the nature and scope of projectUnderstand environmentIdentify students and their expectations (know your customer)Establish diverse groupsHave clearly defined goals and align these with agendasStrict deadlines should be built into the project

  • A Teachers Work is Never DoneAn effective teacher should monitor throughout the entire processIdentify risk factors and develop strategies to manage these risksUtilize tools which are equipped with effective interaction management scaffolds (monitoring instruments)

  • Misconceptions

    MisconceptionTruthReduces teacher workloadRequires as much preparation, management and involvementTechnology is too expensiveSome current technology (Avatar) are more cost-efficient than traditional methods (teleconferencing)

  • Trouble-ShootingIf there are problems within a group, the instructor may need to step inSend encouraging messagesIdentify obstacles that may be preventing participationRotate roles within group

  • Project Management MethodologyPlanExecuteMonitorProblem-solveClosure

  • Incorporating TechnologyConsistently, throughout the literature, studies have proven that technologies play a major role in contributing to the success of CLEsHelps to facilitate regular communicationOvercomes distance barriersKeeps instructors up-to-date on progress

  • Selecting Technology ToolsTeachers must carefully select the technology tools to be usedShould be driven by the needs of the learner and context of learningShould be designed to help students scaffold each others learningCost of technology (purchases, maintenance, security) should not compromise availability of support staff

  • Key TechnologiesVirtual EnvironmentsShared Document EditorsSocial MediaCollaborative Multimedia

  • Virtual EnvironmentsCollaborative Virtual Environments (CVEs) provide virtual space in which users can collaborate and interact through avatars in computer simulated environments.

    Examples: Second Life, Active Worlds, and Whyville

  • New York middle school students entered Second Life to create avatars based on characters from a novel about the American Revolution. After the design and description of their avatars, they interacted with characters from other novels.

    (Weir, n.d)Second Life

  • BenefitsCross-cultural interaction increases intersubjectivityStudents engage more freely in CVEs, pool knowledge and resources within the group context, and create final products with contain fewer errorsMost CVE allow groups to meet in private learning areas Challenges Time constraints In some cases, students felt learning to navigate CVE difficult and distracting from the learning processPros & Cons

  • Shared Document EditorsShared document editors allow for collaboration on single products.

    Examples: Google Docs, EtherPad, wikis, and group blogging

  • http://www.tothetech.com/tools-and-utilities/online-file-sharing-and-net-meeting-in-one-place.htmlThis shared document editor exemplifies some of the key features of this type of technology.Showdocument.com

  • BenefitsProduction of higher quality documentsIncreased student engagement and reflection

    ChallengesReluctance to edit another users workStudents with higher digital competence felt more positive about the technology than those with less digital competencePros & Cons

  • Social MediaSocial media facilitates the connection to like-minded users and the sharing of knowledge across distances.

    Examples: Video conferencing (Skype, Google video chat); and FaceBook, Ning, and Google+

  • Real-time CommunicationUsing SkypeSharing vital information with incoming students on facebookhttp://blogs.miis.edu/recruiting/2010/03/02/new-facebook-group-for-incoming-students/

  • BenefitsOnline social interaction engages cognitive processes with potential to advance academic achievement Video conferencing provides real-time, face-to-face interactionSocial media sites allow students to interact with those of like educational interests through groups

    ChallengesLegal issues arise regarding the public sharing of student informationThe social aspect of social media can be a distraction from the learning processPros & Cons

  • Collaborative MultimediaTechnology that allows the creation of products expressing content through video, audio, graphics, and other digital media.

    Glogster and TeacherTube/Youtube

  • This glog about the Sharks of Virginia includes interactive images that link users to a website providing more information about each shark.Digital Posters

  • BenefitsCreative expression and blending of content through various forms of multimedia

    ChallengesAccessibility and site navigationPros & Cons

  • Types of AssessmentGeneral types:Assessment of the CLE itselfStudent self-assessmentPeer to peer assessmentInstructor to student assessment All are important, but the last three are most critical to evaluate learning

  • Engaging StudentsEngagement is:critical to effective CLEs in which deep learning occurs (Community of Inquiry model)enhanced when assessment is useddrops off when assessment is over

  • Effective AssessmentsAssessing learning:Process (measure of purposeful collaboration skills)Product (measure of co-created content) Most effective assessment is:Varied (form./summ. and types)TimelyConsists of feedback (targeted, constructive, substantive) and gradesHas numerous opportunities for self, peer, and instructor components

  • BenefitsAssessment is easier in CLE because:Interactions within the CLE are trackableData collection methods and programs can be used to analyze interaction patterns and responsesConventional assessment results (e.g. tests, quizzes) can be given to students automatically and immediatelytools and resources [in CLE] provide an easier and more effective system to conduct problem-based assessment because of the emphasis on interactive, formative and continuous assessment (Moallem, 2009)

  • Example of Measurement Tool

  • DrawbacksAssessment is harder in CLE because:Interactions outside of the CLE are not trackable More difficult to assess equality of contributionsAuthentic, problem-based assessment requires:Formative as well as summative componentsAdditional time on part of instructorUse of philosophical constructs, instructional components, & assessment strategies that instructor may not be familiar with or comfortable usingRubric creation is much more complex

    GROUPPOSTSPARTICIPANTSGroup 1395Group 2275

  • Gaps & Future ResearchGaps and areas for future research:Peer assessment empirical studies in educational contexts are rare; makes designing more effective peer assessment challenging (Van Zundert, Sluijsmans, & Van Merrinboer, 2010)Processes and terminology regarding assessment components and designs are yet to be agreed upon across the literature

  • Gaps & Future ResearchGaps and areas for future research:Parallel research is needed in related fields to bolster findings and deepen understandingAssessment is limited by currently used formats that assign jobs or job descriptions to students; If roles were able to be left more open-ended, and students would still engage, more authentic assessment scenarios with shared responsibility may occur true collaboration & self-regulation

  • Gaps & Future ResearchGaps and areas for future research :Methods for assessing deep learning may conflict with current focus in educationclosed product vs. open-ended inquiry/problem-solvingAssessment for learning vs. assessment for gradingStudies that explore student engagement and its impact on the quality of peer assessment are needed (e.g. - motivational, emotional, competency); these factors may be difficult to study empirically; may need qualitative studies

  • Gaps & Future ResearchGaps and areas for future research:Impact of self- and co-regulation on assessment performance (process and product outcomes) quality needs to be examined Underlying theoretical framework (e.g. CoI) research is needed to better explain interaction of learner presence and assessment performance (process and product outcomes) quality

  • Big PictureTake-Away:Learning outcomes dealing with 21st century skills in CLEs are complexBetter theoretical models and assessment tools need to be developedEmerging fields of research and a greater interest in studying CLEs is resulting in a growing body of knowledge and new journals reporting that knowledge

  • GoalMove students from isolated learning to social-based learning

    School to SchoolState to StateCountry to Country

  • Three Dimensions of Practice Information Experience

    Body of knowledge forms foundation for learning and experienceLearning is impacted by experience and application

    (Twining, 2009, 507)

  • Three Dimensions of Practice Individual Social

    Focus of learning starts with the individualSocial interaction leads to collaboration and discussion to increase learning

  • Three Dimensions of Practice - Reflection Non-reflection

    Reflection on social learning experience transforms into new knowledgeIndividual processes reinforces learningConditioningMemorizationSkills learning

  • Beginning of Collaborative Environments

    Online chats and discussionsEmails, discussion boardsPerformed outside of traditional schoolsPerformed in isolation and asynchronousProvided opportunities for reflection among peers for deeper meaning

  • Next Step in Collaborative EnvironmentsBlended LearningWidens the spectrum of learningComputer-Supported Collaborative Learning Environments (CSCL)Encourages collaboration among different programs and institutionsCoordination between face-to-face and online interaction as critical component of collaborative learning process

  • Current Status

    Virtual Learning EnvironmentSchome Iniative (combination school and home)Implementing virtual literacy ethnographyCollaborative Educational Virtual Environments (CEVE)Second Life providing multiple phases of learningCurrently interacting online without contact in the real worldPotential to interact in virtual settings and real world Promote learning through role playPromote learning be becoming

  • Goal of Virtual World(Twining,2009, 507)

  • Virtual WorldIn 3D virtual learners need to discover strategies to present authentic feelingsCurrent avatars do not express true human feelingsMisleading to other virtual learners Does not allow human nature to read verbal and body language cues

  • Further ResearchHow to bridge the gap between technological and pedagogical expertise? (Rogerson-Revell, 2007)How do educators take full advantage of potential of virtual learning environments? (Twining, 2009)How does CSCL increase student engagement and flexibility? (So and Bonk, 2010)

  • What are design issues to blended learning approaches to support CSCL to create seamless and effective integration of face-to-face online interaction? (So and Bonk, 2010)

    How do educator apply the framework of Collaborative Educational Virtual Environments (CEVEs)? (Tsiatsos, Andreas, & Pomportsis, 2010)

    Further Research

  • How do you measure group cohesiveness and performance in online collaboration learning? (Choi and Kang, 2010)

    How does virtual literacy ethnography translate to everyday literacy? (Gillen, 2009)

    Further Research

  • Whats on the Horizon?CLEs were addressed in the 2009 Horizon Report: K-12 EditionStill considered among the most important issues in educationTypically, once a topic has appeared on the near-term horizon, it does not appear in a report again, but the Advisory Board clearly felt that collaborative environments continue to bear watching.Horizon Report2010 K-12 Edition

  • Final ThoughtsIn conclusion, after extensive review of the literature, the one thing we know for sure, is

  • When we work together: Amazing things can happen

  • Anderson, B. (2007). Book review. [Review of the book Designing collaborative systems, by A. Crabtree]. Computer Supported Cooperative Work, 16(6), 615-617. doi: 10.1007/s10606-007-9057-0Brodahl, C., Hadjerrouit, S., & Hansen, N. K. (2011). Collaborative writing with Web 2.0 technologies: Education students' perceptions. Journal of Information Technology Education, 10, 73-103.Burton, B., & Martin, B. (2010). Learning in 3D virtual environments: Collaboration and knowledge spirals. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 43(2), 259-273. Bye, L., Smith, S., & Rallis, H. M. (2009). Reflection using an online discussion forum:Impact on student learning and satisfaction. Social Work Education. 28(8) 841-855.Calvani, A., Fini, A., Molino, M., & Ranieri, M. (2010). Visualizing and monitoring effective interactions in online collaborative groups. British Journal of Educational Technology, 41(2) 213-226.Chang, V., Gtl, C., Kopeinik, S., & Williams, R. (2009). Evaluation of collaborative learning settings in 3D virtual worlds. International Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning, (S3), 6-17. doi:10.3991/ijet.v4s3.1112Chih-Kai, C. (2010). Acceptability of an asynchronous learning forum on mobile devices.Behaviour & Information Technology. 29(1) 23-33.Devaney, L. (2010). Digital access, collaboration a must for students. eSchool News. Retrieved from: http://www.eschoolnews.com/2010/03/16/digital-access-collaboration-a-must-for-students/

    References

  • Diaz, V. (2010). Web 2.0 and emerging technologies in online learning. New Directions for Community Colleges. 150, 57-66.Falloon, G. (2011). Making the connection: Moores theory of transactional distance and its relevance to the use of a virtual classroom in postgraduate online teacher education.Journal of Research on Technology in Education. 43(3) 187-209.Garrison, D. R., Anderson, T., & Archer, W. (2010). The first decade of the community of inquiry framework: A retrospective. Internet & Higher Education, 13(1/2), 5-9. Gosper, M. V., McNeill, M. A., & Woo, K. (2010). Harnessing the power of technologies to manage collaborative e-learning projects in dispersed environments. Journal of Distance Education, 24(1), 167-186.Hargadon, S. (2009). Educational networking: The important role web 2.0 will play in education. Retrieved from Elluminate website: http://audio.edtechlive.com/lc/EducationalSocialNetworkingWhitepaper.pdfHopfer, S., & MacEachren, A. M. (2007). Leveraging the potential of geospatial annotations for collaboration: a communication theory perspective. International Journal of Geographical Information Science, 21(8), 921-934. Huang, Y., Jeng, Y., & Huang, T. (2009). An educational mobile blogging system for supporting collaborative learning. Educational Technology & Society, 12(2), 163-175. Hyo-Jeong S. & Bonk, C.J. (2010). Examining the roles of blended learning approaches in computer-supported collaborative learning (CSCL) environments: A delphi study. Journal of Educational Technology & Society. 13(3) 189-200.

    References

  • Johnson, L., Smith, R., Levine, A., and Haywood, K., (2010). The 2010 Horizon Report: K-12 Edition. Austin, Texas: The New Media Consortium. Jones, M. (2010). A CSCL approach to blended learning in the integration of technology in teaching. Interdisciplinary Journal of E-Learning & Learning Objects, 6, 103-113.Kollar, I., & Fischer, F. (2010). Peer assessment as collaborative learning: A cognitive perspective. Learning & Instruction, 20, 344-348. doi: 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2009.08.005Kolfschoten, G., Vreede, G., Briggs, R., & Sol, H. (2010). Collaboration engineerability. Group Decision and Negotiation, 19(3), 301-321. Konstantinidis, A., Tsiatsos, T., & Pomportsis, A. (2009). Collaborative virtual learning environments: design and evaluation. Multimedia Tools and Applications, 44(2), 279-304.Kubo, M. M., Tori, R., & Kirner, C. (2002). Interaction in collaborative educational virtual environments. CyberPsychology and Behavior, 5(5), 399-407.Lakkala, M., Ilomki, L., & Palonen, T. (2007). Implementing virtual collaborative inquiry practises in a middle-school context. Behaviour & Information Technology, 26(1), 37-53.Ligorio, M., Cesareni, D., & Schwartz, N. (2008). Collaborative virtual environments as means to increase the level of intersubjectivity in a distributed cognition system. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 40(3), 339-357.

    References

  • Ligorio, M., & Van Veen, K. (2006). Constructing a successful cross-national virtual learning environment in primary and secondary education. AACE Journal, 14(2), 103-128.Macdonald, J. (2003). Assessing online collaborative learning: process and product. Computers & Education, 40(4), 377-391.Minocha, S., & Roberts, D. (2008). Laying the groundwork for socialisation and knowledge construction within 3D virtual worlds. ALT-J: Association for Learning Technology Journal, 16(3), 181-196.Moallem, M. (2009). Assessment of complex learning outcomes in online learning environments. In P. Rogers (Ed.), Encyclopedia of distance learning (pp. 94-102). Hershey, PA: IGI Global.Nicholas, H. & Wan, N. (2009). Engaging secondary school students in extended and open learning supported by online technologies. Journal of Research on Technology in Education. 41(3) 305-328.Paraskeva, F., Mysirlaki, S., & Choustoulakis, E. (2009). Designing collaborative learning environments using educational scenarios based on self-regulation. International Journal of Advanced Corporate Learning, 2(1), 42-49. doi: 10.3991/ijac.v2i1.606Persico, D., Pozzi, F., & Sarti, L. (2010). Monitoring Collaborative Activities in Computer Supported Collaborative Learning. Distance Education, 31(1), 5-22.Resta, P., & Laferrire, T. (2007). Technology in support of collaborative learning. Educational Psychology Review, 19(1), 65-83.

    References

  • Rimor, R., Rosen, Y., & Naser, K. (2010). Complexity of Social Interactions in Collaborative Learning: The Case of Online Database Environment. Interdisciplinary Journal of E-Learning & Learning Objects, 6, 355-365. Rogerson-Revell, P. (2007). Directions in e-learning tools and technologies and their relevance to online distance language education. Open Learning. 22(1) 57-74.Shea, P., & Bidjerano, T. (2010). Learning presence: Towards a theory of self-efficacy, self-regulation, and the development of a communities of inquiry in online and blended learning environments. Computers & Education, 55(4), 1721-1731.Slagter van T., Patricia J., & Bishop, M. J. (2009). Theoretical foundations for enhancing social connectedness in online learning environments. Distance Education. 30(3) 291-315.So, H.-J., Seah, L. H., & Toh-Heng, H. L. (2010). Designing collaborative knowledge building environments accessible to all learners: Impacts and design challenges. Computers & Education, 54(2), 479-490.Tsai, A. (2011). A hybrid e-learning model incorporating some of the principal learning theories. Social Behavior & Personality: An International Journal, 39(2), 145-152.Vonderwell, S., Liang, X., & Alderman, K. (2007). Asynchronous discussions and assessment in online learning. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 39(3), 309.Weir, L. (n.d.). Get a life: Students collaborate in simulated roles. Edutopia. Retrieved from http://www.edutopia.org/second-life-virtual-reality-collaborationYueh-Min, H., Yu-Lin, J., & Tien-Chi, H. (2009). An educational mobile blogging system for supporting collaborative learning. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 12(2), 163-175.

    References

    Virtual Environments can facilitate interdisciplinary and/or cross-cultural collaboration over long distances. Students learn to interact within group contexts as they pool knowledge and resources.

    Virtual Environments can facilitate interdisciplinary and/or cross-cultural collaboration over long distances. Students learn to interact within group contexts as they pool knowledge and resources.

    Shared Doc Editors - Brodahl, Hadjerrouit, and Hansen (2011) sought to fill in the gap in the literature regarding shared doc editors, specifically Google Docs and Etherpad.

    Virtual Environments can facilitate interdisciplinary and/or cross-cultural collaboration over long distances. Students learn to interact within group contexts as they pool knowledge and resources.

    Shared Doc Editors - Brodahl, Hadjerrouit, and Hansen (2011) sought to fill in the gap in the literature regarding shared doc editors, specifically Google Docs and Etherpad.

    Virtual Environments can facilitate interdisciplinary and/or cross-cultural collaboration over long distances. Students learn to interact within group contexts as they pool knowledge and resources.

    Shared Doc Editors - Brodahl, Hadjerrouit, and Hansen (2011) sought to fill in the gap in the literature regarding shared doc editors, specifically Google Docs and Etherpad.