During the early stages of the course I wanted to focus on workplace learning as I feel not enough research has been undertaken in this area. I see workplaces as dynamic and complex environments that you can view through various lenses to see layers of complexity not present in relatively homogeneous primary and tertiary educational settings. I’m also particularly interested in how employees learn within environments of workplace change. My previous experience working as a training manager for a telecommunications organization involved working with a large generation Y demographic. I was impressed with how flexible and adaptable the staff were in learning new large complex systems, and constant changes in technology, prices and plans.
What I learnt about myself during the unit was that I’m not too fond of publically documenting my inner thoughts through blogs. Content analysis of my blog entries show my working attempts at assignments, areas that I was working on, reviewed references , and reworked proposals. Reading between the lines of my blog entries reveal my initial misconceptions of the unit. In particular my assumption that the unit seamlessly integrated from my previous unit: Developing a Research Project, leading to an initial rush to finalise a research topic. This is seen through a prematurely optimistic blog heading such as “Research Question Finalised”.
My research focus remained within the retail telecommunications sector however it took me longer than expected to finalise my focus on one research question. My focus did evolved over time, initially quite general to more specific:
“Examine one telecommunications retail provider, examine its current E-Learning system and propose improvements to the system”
This general idea evolved to include staff motivation:
“Which E-Learning system features positively influence the motivation of retail telecommunications store staff to successfully complete their online courses?”
This idea evolved to include collaborative learning:
“Currently reviewing E-Learning, in particular, the experience of participants in collaborative E-Learning environments and whether design may influence their experience and motivation”.
While examining collaborative E-Learning I found an interesting area called "Spontaneous" Collaborative Learning.
“I’m considering examining: Measuring participant experience of spontaneous collaborative learning within a self-directed team.”
This is an interesting area because teachers and trainers may witness students spontaneously collaboratively learning however they might not ever encourage or create frameworks for it to exist. Researching spontaneous collaborative learning made me contemplate on a missed opportunity in spontaneously collaborating with my fellow peers during the course, something I will take ownership of in future courses. Unfortunately life got in the way of examining this topic to its fullest extent through my literature review assessment, however I was able to make more time for a better attempt at my design plan assessment.
Peter Goodyear mentioned during our initial class meeting that through his research he has been “punching out dents” in the field for the past 20 years. I’m beginning to realize the expanse and possibilities for research in the field and areas yet to be fully explored.
So where to from now? Very excited to be nearing the completion of my Masters, I’ll definitely spend the term break reading and thinking about possibilities for my final paper next year.
Tuesday, November 2, 2010
Sunday, October 10, 2010
Design Plan / Proposal
This study will examine the collaborative and individual learning experiences of retail store staff in one telecommunications retail organization. The study will aim to propose recommendations for organizations that wish to foster spontaneous collaborative learning environments.
The telecommunication retail sector in Australia is represented by organizations such as Vodafone, Telstra Optus and Virgin Mobile. These organizations also operate traditional brick & mortar mobile phone retail stores that employ staff to sell mobile phone devices and connect customers to the providers network. The rate of change in this competitive sector is quite rapid as new mobile devices, promotions and plans that mobile phones are sold on are introduced each month.
The challenge for telecommunications retail staff is to constantly keep up-to-date with new mobile phones and their associated features in order to effectively promote the devices to potential customers. The challenge for telecommunication retail organizations is to effectively and efficiently support their staff in learning new mobile device features and potential benefits so they can use this knowledge to sell to potential customers. Traditionally this has been achieved through group training sessions, one-on-one training and more recently through online learning initiatives that introduce new technologies. These organisational driven training initiatives are often designed to apply to all staff regardless of previous knowledge or skill levels.
Intro to Cooperative Learning
In an ideal cooperative learning environments store staff would work in a group, learning about new handset devices being introduced into their stores, in an atmosphere of mutual respect and autonomy while they discover solutions to questions and generate new ideas together. In this environment they would be able to develop relationships between new and previously learned information, to internalise ideas and feedback, and also to enhance their perceptions of positive support from the other group members (Tang, K. C. C, 1993, p.115).
Questions to address:
What inhibits cooperative learning?
What factors need to be present for spontaneous collaborative learning to be successful?
Why isn't spontaneous collaborative learning more widespread?
What would be the most effective research strategy for this study considering telco retail store environments can be quite busy with staff rostered at different times?
The telecommunication retail sector in Australia is represented by organizations such as Vodafone, Telstra Optus and Virgin Mobile. These organizations also operate traditional brick & mortar mobile phone retail stores that employ staff to sell mobile phone devices and connect customers to the providers network. The rate of change in this competitive sector is quite rapid as new mobile devices, promotions and plans that mobile phones are sold on are introduced each month.
The challenge for telecommunications retail staff is to constantly keep up-to-date with new mobile phones and their associated features in order to effectively promote the devices to potential customers. The challenge for telecommunication retail organizations is to effectively and efficiently support their staff in learning new mobile device features and potential benefits so they can use this knowledge to sell to potential customers. Traditionally this has been achieved through group training sessions, one-on-one training and more recently through online learning initiatives that introduce new technologies. These organisational driven training initiatives are often designed to apply to all staff regardless of previous knowledge or skill levels.
Intro to Cooperative Learning
In an ideal cooperative learning environments store staff would work in a group, learning about new handset devices being introduced into their stores, in an atmosphere of mutual respect and autonomy while they discover solutions to questions and generate new ideas together. In this environment they would be able to develop relationships between new and previously learned information, to internalise ideas and feedback, and also to enhance their perceptions of positive support from the other group members (Tang, K. C. C, 1993, p.115).
Questions to address:
What inhibits cooperative learning?
What factors need to be present for spontaneous collaborative learning to be successful?
Why isn't spontaneous collaborative learning more widespread?
What would be the most effective research strategy for this study considering telco retail store environments can be quite busy with staff rostered at different times?
Sunday, October 3, 2010
Design Plan / Proposal
This study will examine the collaborative and individual learning experiences of retail staff in one telecommunications retail organization.
Telecommunications retail staff are required to quickly learn the features of new mobile technology being introduced into their stores and apply this knowledge through their sales technique. This study will evaluate the experiences of participants within collaborative learning environments and propose recommendations for organizations that wish to foster spontaneous collaborative learning environments.
The research strategy for this study will take the form of a case study involving store staff of one retail store being divided into two groups, a self study group and a collaborative learning group.
- The self study group will learn about the features of a new handset individually.
- The collaborative learning group will learn about the features of a new handset collectively.
Collection of data will be through multiple data collection approaches including:
- Results of a written assessment which the staff will complete after the activity
- Researcher observation recordings during the activity
- Semi-structured interviews conducted before and the activity
Telecommunications retail staff are required to quickly learn the features of new mobile technology being introduced into their stores and apply this knowledge through their sales technique. This study will evaluate the experiences of participants within collaborative learning environments and propose recommendations for organizations that wish to foster spontaneous collaborative learning environments.
The research strategy for this study will take the form of a case study involving store staff of one retail store being divided into two groups, a self study group and a collaborative learning group.
- The self study group will learn about the features of a new handset individually.
- The collaborative learning group will learn about the features of a new handset collectively.
Collection of data will be through multiple data collection approaches including:
- Results of a written assessment which the staff will complete after the activity
- Researcher observation recordings during the activity
- Semi-structured interviews conducted before and the activity
Wednesday, September 22, 2010
Research Design Report Proposal
For my research design report my proposal at this stage I’m considering examining: Measuring participant experience of spontaneous collaborative learning within a self-directed team.
I became interested in this idea from an article by Tang below and felt there would be application for this concept within self-directed workplace teams. There is an assumption that collaborative teams require a figure of authority to facilitate / steer proceedings which may not necessarily be the case.
Tang, K. C. C.(1993) Spontaneous Collaborative Learning: A New Dimension in Student Learning Experience?', Higher Education Research & Development.
I became interested in this idea from an article by Tang below and felt there would be application for this concept within self-directed workplace teams. There is an assumption that collaborative teams require a figure of authority to facilitate / steer proceedings which may not necessarily be the case.
Tang, K. C. C.(1993) Spontaneous Collaborative Learning: A New Dimension in Student Learning Experience?', Higher Education Research & Development.
Tuesday, September 21, 2010
Research Review
Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning (CSCL) Environments
Introduction
Collaborative learning has be described as cooperative learning, collective learning, peer learning, reciprocal learning or team learning, all of which reference participants working together in a group small enough that everyone can participate on a collective task that has been clearly assigned. Moreover, students are expected to carry out their task without direct and immediate supervision of a teacher (Cohen, 1994, p.3). “Cooperative learning is used to increase participant achievement, create more positive relationships and improve participant psychological well-being” (Johnson & Johnson, 2004, pp.12, 27- 29). Collaborative learning group interactions enable students to view the problems from new perspectives, to develop relationships between new and previously learned information, to internalise ideas and criticism, and also to enhance perceptions of positive support from the other group members (Tang, 1993, p.116). Technology is now able to facilitate collaborative learning in what is termed computer-supported collaborative learning (CSCL). Studies in this area are predominately focused on traditional educational environments such as schools or tertiary sectors; however there are also vast applications of CSCL within organisational environments. The reasons these applications haven’t been fully exploited could possibly include organisational barriers to entry for research due to policy, corporate confidentiality or the availability of resources within organizations to facilitate research. Much can be gleaned from the research of CSCL within educational settings, student experiences with CSCL and applied to improve to workplace CSCL environments.
Theoretical Perspectives on Cooperative Learning & Achievement
Slavin (1995) identifies four major theoretical perspectives through which to view studies in cooperative learning and achievement. These include Motivational, Social Cohesion, Cognitive and Developmental perspectives. The Motivational perspective focuses primarily on the reward or goal structures under which participants operate. The Social Cohesion perspective focuses on the cohesiveness of the group. The Cognitive Perspective holds that interactions amongst participants will in themselves increase student achievement for reasons which have to do with mental processing of information rather than with motivations. The Developmental Perspective postulates that interaction amongst participants around appropriate tasks increases their mastery of critical concepts.
Participant Experiences of CSCL
Numerous studies have highlighted the positive experiences of students who have participated in CSCL environments. Meta-analysis studies have revealed participants showing little preference between CSCL and live classroom environments, and that participants can find distance learning as satisfactory as traditional classroom learning formats (Allen, Bourhis, Burrell & Mabry, 2002). Studies of distance learners from the Open University in the Netherlands found group cohesion within collaborative learning to positively influence student satisfaction (Dewiyanti, Brand-Gruwel, Jochems, Broers, 2004 pp.511-513). CSCL environments also have the potential benefit of supporting diverse learning styles (Wang, Hing, Kanfer, 2001, p.82). Graduate students undertaking a blended-format course in health education with perceived high levels of collaborative learning also tended to be more satisfied with their distance course (So, H.J., Brush, T.A. 2007). Participant experience in these cases may have been influenced by the students themselves, their learning expectations, learning levels or the actual design and use of tools within the CSCL environment.
Not all CSCL learning experiences are positive for all participants or their learning outcomes. Adult distance learners from the Open University in the Netherlands found group process regulation to have a negative influence on their satisfaction with working in a group, a finding the authors dispute as a requirement for collaborative learning. (Dewiyanti, Brand-Gruwel, Jochems, Broers, pp.511-513). Social loafing, ineffective communication, conflict among group members and negative attitudes toward group work were highlighted as posing major challenges to online collaboration (Thompson, L., Ku, H-Y. 2006).Variance in cooperative learning findings is acknowledged by Cohen (1994) who suggests that the advantages that can theoretically be obtained from cooperative learning can actually be obtained only under certain conditions. The way participants interact depends on how teachers have structured interdependence in the learning situation (Johnson & Johnson, p.48). Cohen recognises a major difference between the type of interaction useful for tasks with clear procedures and right answers and the type of interaction desired when the objective is learning for understanding or conceptual learning and the task is ill-structured. For more routine learning, Cohen sees it necessary for students to help each other to understand what the teacher or the textbook is saying, and it is helpful for them to offer each other substantive and procedural information. For conceptual learning, effective interaction should be more of a mutual exchange process in which ideas, hypotheses, strategies, and speculations are shared.
In cooperative situations, individuals tend to interact, promote each other’s success, form multidimensional and realistic impressions of each other’s competencies and give accurate feedback (Johnson, D.W., Johnson, R.T., 2004, p.68). Based on this, questions arise as to how the design of CSCL environments can positively influence and improve learner experiences. Graduate students undertaking a blended-format course in health education tended to be satisfied with their overall learning experiences when distance courses included balanced and multi-structured learning components such as opportunities for online and offline interaction designed to promote collaborative social interactions (So, H-J., Brush, T.A. 2007). Cohen (pp. 3-4) sees the relationship between the total amount of interaction within a group and achievement differing according to the nature of the task. In particular the total amount of interaction should be far more critical for achievement gains when there is an ill-structured problem that is a true group task than when the task is more clear-cut and could be carried out by individuals.
Variations of CSCL & Areas for Future Study
In a collaborative learning environment, group members identify and build on their individual strengths so that everyone makes a great contribution to the learning task (Wang, 2009, p.1139). A possible inherent assumption within CSCL environments is that a figure of authority such as a teacher is required to assist in the collaboration of participants. However Tang (1993) discusses a different kind of cooperative learning which is student-initiated and not structured by the teachers: Spontaneous Collaborative Learning (SCOLL). In a study of tertiary students, collaborative learning when initiated and self-structured by the students' own efforts tended to lead to a deep approach to studying and to better learning outcomes, especially in the structural quality of assignments. SCOLL challenges conceptions that collaborative learning requires a teacher to facilitate the collaboration. Studies of SCOLL are currently limited; however they present opportunities within organisational settings, in particular with self directed teams. Self Directed Teams are small groups of employees who have day-to-day responsibility for managing themselves and their work (Cliffard, Sohal, 1998, p. 78). By enabling SCOLL new possibilities could emerge which may influence the way we conceptualise, manage, assess and interact with learning and organisational teams.
References
Allen, M., Bourhis, J., Burrell, N., Mabry, E. (2002) Comparing Student Satisfaction With Distance Education to Traditional Classrooms in Higher Education: A Meta-Analysis. American Journal of Distance Education, Volume 16, Issue 2 June 2002 , pages 83 – 97. Accessed 10 September 2010: http://pdfserve.informaworld.com.ezproxy2.library.usyd.edu.au/835915_751320080_783721066.pdf
Clifford,G.P., Sohal, A.S. (1998) "Developing self-directed work teams", Management Decision, Vol. 36 Iss: 2, pp.77 – 84. Accessed 12 Spetember 2010: http://dd8gh5yx7k.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info%3Aofi%2Fenc%3AUTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/summon.serialssolutions.com&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Developing+self directed+work+teams&rft.jtitle=Management+Decision&rft.au=Amrik+S.+Sohal&rft.au=Gavin+P.+Clifford&rft.date=1998--0-3-&rft.issn=0025-1747&rft.volume=36&rft.issue=2&rft.spage=77&rft.externalDBID=MGD&rft.externalDocID=117543099:
Cohen, E.G. (1994) Restructuring the Classroom: Conditions for Productive Small Groups. Review of Educational Research, Spring 1994, Vol. 64, No. 1, pp. 1-35. Accessed 5 September 2010: http://links.jstor.org.ezproxy1.library.usyd.edu.au/stable/pdfplus/1170744.pdf?acceptTC=true
Dewiyanti, S., Brand-Gruwel, S., Jochems, W., Broers, N.J. (2007) Students experiences with collaborative learning in asynchronous Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning environments. Computers in Human Behavior 23 (2007) 496–514. Accessed 9 September 2010: http://www.sciencedirect.com.ezproxy2.library.usyd.edu.au/science?_ob=MImg&_imagekey=B6VDC-4DTTBC0-3-1&_cdi=5979&_user=115085&_pii=S0747563204001803&_origin=search&_coverDate=01%2F31%2F2007&_sk=999769998&view=c&wchp=dGLzVzb-zSkWA&md5=b40aebe33fbbd7f573ab20b46cbaa89f&ie=/sdarticle.pdf
Johnson, D.W., Johnson, R.T. (1994) Learning Together and Alone. Cooperative, Competitive and Individualistic Learning. Allyn and Bacon, Massachusetts.
Slavin, R.E. (1996) Research On Cooperative Learning And Achievement: What We Know, What We Need To Know. Contemporary Educational Psychology 21, 43–69 Article no. 0004. Accessed 7 September 2010: http://www.konferenslund.se/pp/TAPPS_Slavin.pdf/
So H-J., Brush, T.A. (2007) Student perceptions of collaborative learning, social presence and satisfaction in a blended learning environment: Relationships and critical factors. Computers & Education. Volume 51, Issue 1, August 2008, Pages 318-336. Accessed 9 September 2010: http://www.sciencedirect.com.ezproxy2.library.usyd.edu.au/science?_ob=MImg&_imagekey=B6VCJ-4P8H858-1-5&_cdi=5956&_user=115085&_pii=S0360131507000565&_origin=search&_coverDate=08%2F31%2F2008&_sk=999489998&view=c&wchp=dGLzVlb-zSkWA&md5=cc5238aba1b46b06bad8b957692f9822&ie=/sdarticle.pdf
Tang, K. C. C.(1993) Spontaneous Collaborative Learning: A New Dimension in Student Learning Experience?', Higher Education Research & Development, 12: 2, 115 – 130. Accessed 8 September 2010: http://pdfserve.informaworld.com.ezproxy2.library.usyd.edu.au/447121_751320080_758498926.pdf
Thompson. L., Ku, H-Y.(2006) A Case Study of Online Collaborative Learning. Quarterly Review of Distance Education. Greenwich: 2006. Vol. 7, Iss. 4; pg. 361, 17 pgs. Accessed 8 September 2010: http://ezproxy.library.usyd.edu.au/login?url=http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?did=1668660261&Fmt=7&clientId=16331&RQT=309&VName=PQD
Wang, X.C., Hinn, D.M., Kanfer, A.G. (2001) Potential of computer-supported collaborative learning for learners with different learning styles. Journal of Research on Technology in Education; Fall 2001; 34, 1; Academic Research Library pg. 75. Accessed 7 September 2010: http://ezproxy.library.usyd.edu.au/login?url=http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?did=101617134&Fmt=6&clientId=16331&RQT=309&VName=PQD
Wang, Q., (2009) Design and evaluation of a collaborative learning environment. Computers & Education 53 (2009) 1138–1146. Accessed 7 September 2010: http://www.sciencedirect.com.ezproxy2.library.usyd.edu.au/science?_ob=MImg&_imagekey=B6VCJ-4WMKXPR-1-C&_cdi=5956&_user=115085&_pii=S0360131509001353&_origin=search&_zone=rslt_list_item&_coverDate=12%2F31%2F2009&_sk=999469995&wchp=dGLbVlz-zSkzV&md5=425723ff6506df5f6306c66fef6b234e&ie=/sdarticle.pdf
Introduction
Collaborative learning has be described as cooperative learning, collective learning, peer learning, reciprocal learning or team learning, all of which reference participants working together in a group small enough that everyone can participate on a collective task that has been clearly assigned. Moreover, students are expected to carry out their task without direct and immediate supervision of a teacher (Cohen, 1994, p.3). “Cooperative learning is used to increase participant achievement, create more positive relationships and improve participant psychological well-being” (Johnson & Johnson, 2004, pp.12, 27- 29). Collaborative learning group interactions enable students to view the problems from new perspectives, to develop relationships between new and previously learned information, to internalise ideas and criticism, and also to enhance perceptions of positive support from the other group members (Tang, 1993, p.116). Technology is now able to facilitate collaborative learning in what is termed computer-supported collaborative learning (CSCL). Studies in this area are predominately focused on traditional educational environments such as schools or tertiary sectors; however there are also vast applications of CSCL within organisational environments. The reasons these applications haven’t been fully exploited could possibly include organisational barriers to entry for research due to policy, corporate confidentiality or the availability of resources within organizations to facilitate research. Much can be gleaned from the research of CSCL within educational settings, student experiences with CSCL and applied to improve to workplace CSCL environments.
Theoretical Perspectives on Cooperative Learning & Achievement
Slavin (1995) identifies four major theoretical perspectives through which to view studies in cooperative learning and achievement. These include Motivational, Social Cohesion, Cognitive and Developmental perspectives. The Motivational perspective focuses primarily on the reward or goal structures under which participants operate. The Social Cohesion perspective focuses on the cohesiveness of the group. The Cognitive Perspective holds that interactions amongst participants will in themselves increase student achievement for reasons which have to do with mental processing of information rather than with motivations. The Developmental Perspective postulates that interaction amongst participants around appropriate tasks increases their mastery of critical concepts.
Participant Experiences of CSCL
Numerous studies have highlighted the positive experiences of students who have participated in CSCL environments. Meta-analysis studies have revealed participants showing little preference between CSCL and live classroom environments, and that participants can find distance learning as satisfactory as traditional classroom learning formats (Allen, Bourhis, Burrell & Mabry, 2002). Studies of distance learners from the Open University in the Netherlands found group cohesion within collaborative learning to positively influence student satisfaction (Dewiyanti, Brand-Gruwel, Jochems, Broers, 2004 pp.511-513). CSCL environments also have the potential benefit of supporting diverse learning styles (Wang, Hing, Kanfer, 2001, p.82). Graduate students undertaking a blended-format course in health education with perceived high levels of collaborative learning also tended to be more satisfied with their distance course (So, H.J., Brush, T.A. 2007). Participant experience in these cases may have been influenced by the students themselves, their learning expectations, learning levels or the actual design and use of tools within the CSCL environment.
Not all CSCL learning experiences are positive for all participants or their learning outcomes. Adult distance learners from the Open University in the Netherlands found group process regulation to have a negative influence on their satisfaction with working in a group, a finding the authors dispute as a requirement for collaborative learning. (Dewiyanti, Brand-Gruwel, Jochems, Broers, pp.511-513). Social loafing, ineffective communication, conflict among group members and negative attitudes toward group work were highlighted as posing major challenges to online collaboration (Thompson, L., Ku, H-Y. 2006).Variance in cooperative learning findings is acknowledged by Cohen (1994) who suggests that the advantages that can theoretically be obtained from cooperative learning can actually be obtained only under certain conditions. The way participants interact depends on how teachers have structured interdependence in the learning situation (Johnson & Johnson, p.48). Cohen recognises a major difference between the type of interaction useful for tasks with clear procedures and right answers and the type of interaction desired when the objective is learning for understanding or conceptual learning and the task is ill-structured. For more routine learning, Cohen sees it necessary for students to help each other to understand what the teacher or the textbook is saying, and it is helpful for them to offer each other substantive and procedural information. For conceptual learning, effective interaction should be more of a mutual exchange process in which ideas, hypotheses, strategies, and speculations are shared.
In cooperative situations, individuals tend to interact, promote each other’s success, form multidimensional and realistic impressions of each other’s competencies and give accurate feedback (Johnson, D.W., Johnson, R.T., 2004, p.68). Based on this, questions arise as to how the design of CSCL environments can positively influence and improve learner experiences. Graduate students undertaking a blended-format course in health education tended to be satisfied with their overall learning experiences when distance courses included balanced and multi-structured learning components such as opportunities for online and offline interaction designed to promote collaborative social interactions (So, H-J., Brush, T.A. 2007). Cohen (pp. 3-4) sees the relationship between the total amount of interaction within a group and achievement differing according to the nature of the task. In particular the total amount of interaction should be far more critical for achievement gains when there is an ill-structured problem that is a true group task than when the task is more clear-cut and could be carried out by individuals.
Variations of CSCL & Areas for Future Study
In a collaborative learning environment, group members identify and build on their individual strengths so that everyone makes a great contribution to the learning task (Wang, 2009, p.1139). A possible inherent assumption within CSCL environments is that a figure of authority such as a teacher is required to assist in the collaboration of participants. However Tang (1993) discusses a different kind of cooperative learning which is student-initiated and not structured by the teachers: Spontaneous Collaborative Learning (SCOLL). In a study of tertiary students, collaborative learning when initiated and self-structured by the students' own efforts tended to lead to a deep approach to studying and to better learning outcomes, especially in the structural quality of assignments. SCOLL challenges conceptions that collaborative learning requires a teacher to facilitate the collaboration. Studies of SCOLL are currently limited; however they present opportunities within organisational settings, in particular with self directed teams. Self Directed Teams are small groups of employees who have day-to-day responsibility for managing themselves and their work (Cliffard, Sohal, 1998, p. 78). By enabling SCOLL new possibilities could emerge which may influence the way we conceptualise, manage, assess and interact with learning and organisational teams.
References
Allen, M., Bourhis, J., Burrell, N., Mabry, E. (2002) Comparing Student Satisfaction With Distance Education to Traditional Classrooms in Higher Education: A Meta-Analysis. American Journal of Distance Education, Volume 16, Issue 2 June 2002 , pages 83 – 97. Accessed 10 September 2010: http://pdfserve.informaworld.com.ezproxy2.library.usyd.edu.au/835915_751320080_783721066.pdf
Clifford,G.P., Sohal, A.S. (1998) "Developing self-directed work teams", Management Decision, Vol. 36 Iss: 2, pp.77 – 84. Accessed 12 Spetember 2010: http://dd8gh5yx7k.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info%3Aofi%2Fenc%3AUTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/summon.serialssolutions.com&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Developing+self directed+work+teams&rft.jtitle=Management+Decision&rft.au=Amrik+S.+Sohal&rft.au=Gavin+P.+Clifford&rft.date=1998--0-3-&rft.issn=0025-1747&rft.volume=36&rft.issue=2&rft.spage=77&rft.externalDBID=MGD&rft.externalDocID=117543099:
Cohen, E.G. (1994) Restructuring the Classroom: Conditions for Productive Small Groups. Review of Educational Research, Spring 1994, Vol. 64, No. 1, pp. 1-35. Accessed 5 September 2010: http://links.jstor.org.ezproxy1.library.usyd.edu.au/stable/pdfplus/1170744.pdf?acceptTC=true
Dewiyanti, S., Brand-Gruwel, S., Jochems, W., Broers, N.J. (2007) Students experiences with collaborative learning in asynchronous Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning environments. Computers in Human Behavior 23 (2007) 496–514. Accessed 9 September 2010: http://www.sciencedirect.com.ezproxy2.library.usyd.edu.au/science?_ob=MImg&_imagekey=B6VDC-4DTTBC0-3-1&_cdi=5979&_user=115085&_pii=S0747563204001803&_origin=search&_coverDate=01%2F31%2F2007&_sk=999769998&view=c&wchp=dGLzVzb-zSkWA&md5=b40aebe33fbbd7f573ab20b46cbaa89f&ie=/sdarticle.pdf
Johnson, D.W., Johnson, R.T. (1994) Learning Together and Alone. Cooperative, Competitive and Individualistic Learning. Allyn and Bacon, Massachusetts.
Slavin, R.E. (1996) Research On Cooperative Learning And Achievement: What We Know, What We Need To Know. Contemporary Educational Psychology 21, 43–69 Article no. 0004. Accessed 7 September 2010: http://www.konferenslund.se/pp/TAPPS_Slavin.pdf/
So H-J., Brush, T.A. (2007) Student perceptions of collaborative learning, social presence and satisfaction in a blended learning environment: Relationships and critical factors. Computers & Education. Volume 51, Issue 1, August 2008, Pages 318-336. Accessed 9 September 2010: http://www.sciencedirect.com.ezproxy2.library.usyd.edu.au/science?_ob=MImg&_imagekey=B6VCJ-4P8H858-1-5&_cdi=5956&_user=115085&_pii=S0360131507000565&_origin=search&_coverDate=08%2F31%2F2008&_sk=999489998&view=c&wchp=dGLzVlb-zSkWA&md5=cc5238aba1b46b06bad8b957692f9822&ie=/sdarticle.pdf
Tang, K. C. C.(1993) Spontaneous Collaborative Learning: A New Dimension in Student Learning Experience?', Higher Education Research & Development, 12: 2, 115 – 130. Accessed 8 September 2010: http://pdfserve.informaworld.com.ezproxy2.library.usyd.edu.au/447121_751320080_758498926.pdf
Thompson. L., Ku, H-Y.(2006) A Case Study of Online Collaborative Learning. Quarterly Review of Distance Education. Greenwich: 2006. Vol. 7, Iss. 4; pg. 361, 17 pgs. Accessed 8 September 2010: http://ezproxy.library.usyd.edu.au/login?url=http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?did=1668660261&Fmt=7&clientId=16331&RQT=309&VName=PQD
Wang, X.C., Hinn, D.M., Kanfer, A.G. (2001) Potential of computer-supported collaborative learning for learners with different learning styles. Journal of Research on Technology in Education; Fall 2001; 34, 1; Academic Research Library pg. 75. Accessed 7 September 2010: http://ezproxy.library.usyd.edu.au/login?url=http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?did=101617134&Fmt=6&clientId=16331&RQT=309&VName=PQD
Wang, Q., (2009) Design and evaluation of a collaborative learning environment. Computers & Education 53 (2009) 1138–1146. Accessed 7 September 2010: http://www.sciencedirect.com.ezproxy2.library.usyd.edu.au/science?_ob=MImg&_imagekey=B6VCJ-4WMKXPR-1-C&_cdi=5956&_user=115085&_pii=S0360131509001353&_origin=search&_zone=rslt_list_item&_coverDate=12%2F31%2F2009&_sk=999469995&wchp=dGLbVlz-zSkzV&md5=425723ff6506df5f6306c66fef6b234e&ie=/sdarticle.pdf
Monday, September 6, 2010
Current work
Currently reviewing E-Learning, in particular, the experience of participants in collaborative E-Learning environments and whether design may influence their experience and motivation. I’m expecting a possible gap between corporate sector analyses in this area as compared to educational sectors.
Sunday, August 29, 2010
Research Question Finalised
Research Question
Which E-Learning system features positively influence the motivation of retail telecommunications store staff to successfully complete their online courses?
Dependent Variables
• Telecommunications Retail store staff motivation
Independent Variables
• Various E-Learning system features
Why I chose this topic
I became interested in E-Learning systems after noticing that they were sometimes designed, developed and maintained by people without a background in education or learning sciences. Ellis and Goodyear’s research on e-Learning in higher education also noted e-Learning too often being an afterthought, bolted on without much planning or separated from the students face-to-face experience (2010, p.52). As organizations are increasing their focus and resources towards developing e-learning methods (Johnson, R.D., Gueutal, H., F albe, C.M. 2009, p.545) I realize that the risk of ill-designed E-Learning systems resulting in poor learner engagement and motivation to complete online courses may also increase.
Learner Experiences and Behaviour in Online Learning
My study proposes to examine one telecommunications retail provider and examine the learner experiences and behaviour of staff using their current E-Learning system. As few studies have specifically examined this particular demographic, similar studies will be reviewed to assess whether their approaches and insights may add value to the study.
The challenge of this study will be in clearly identifying which e-learning system features (if any) positively influence staff motivation levels in completing their online courses. Martins, Gulikersw and Bastiaensw (2004, p.369) highlighted a shortcoming in most studies focusing on intrinsic motivation in that they were solely based on indirect measures, such as student’s self-ratings which were assessed via questionnaires. This will be taken into consideration when designing the research strategy for the study, which will not only examine staff experiences but also examine their behaviour when using their e-Learning systems. Ultimately this study will propose possible improvements to the organizations’ e-Learning system.
Background to the environment being studied
The telecommunication retail sector in Australia is represented by organizations such as Vodafone, Telstra Optus and Virgin Mobile. These organizations operate both online and traditional brick & mortar mobile phone retail stores that employ staff to sell mobile phone devices and connect customers to their telecommunications networks. The rate of change in this competitive sector is quite rapid as new mobile devices, promotions and mobile plans are introduced each month.
Underpinning theory
Constructivist Theory
From a broad perspective my research will be based on the constructivist theory of learning and instruction, in particular the work of Piaget, Vygotsky and Dewey who all recognized that understanding how thoughts are formed is key to understanding what counts as knowledge (Sawyer, 2006, p.137). Theoretical contributions to constructivism in my research will be centered on the theories of situated learning such as those of Greeno which emphasize the importance of knowledge presented in an authentic context, such as an E-Learning system located within a retail store that simulates authentic workplace environments and situations. Situated Learning also emphasizes the fact that learning requires social interaction and collaboration, features which are now available in many E-Learning systems.
Cognitive Apprenticeship
Brown, Collins & Duguid (1989) further developed Situated Learning theory by emphasizing the idea of cognitive apprenticeship which supports learning in a domain by enabling students to acquire, develop, and use cognitive tools in authentic domain activity. Questions arise as to the limitations of E-Learning system features, and whether successful online cognitive apprenticeship can be achieved through system features that simulate real mentors. Tisdale (2001) studied cognitive apprenticeship in a reading activity between a college student and child and noted the crucial importance of interpersonal relationships and their context in the success of effective learning. At this stage E-Learning systems are limited in not being able to totally replace the complex interactions we experience between humans; however E-Learning system features are able to effectively facilitate these interactions between humans, such as through voice and video functionality.
Next steps
New References:
Ellis, R.A., Goodyear, P. (2010) Students’ Experience of E-Learning in Higher Education. Routledge, NY & UK.
Martens, R.L., Gulikersw J, Bsetiaensw, T. (2004) The impact of intrinsic motivation on e-learning
in authentic computer tasks. Blackwell Publishing Ltd 2004 Journal of Computer Assisted Learning 20, pp368–376
Which E-Learning system features positively influence the motivation of retail telecommunications store staff to successfully complete their online courses?
Dependent Variables
• Telecommunications Retail store staff motivation
Independent Variables
• Various E-Learning system features
Why I chose this topic
I became interested in E-Learning systems after noticing that they were sometimes designed, developed and maintained by people without a background in education or learning sciences. Ellis and Goodyear’s research on e-Learning in higher education also noted e-Learning too often being an afterthought, bolted on without much planning or separated from the students face-to-face experience (2010, p.52). As organizations are increasing their focus and resources towards developing e-learning methods (Johnson, R.D., Gueutal, H., F albe, C.M. 2009, p.545) I realize that the risk of ill-designed E-Learning systems resulting in poor learner engagement and motivation to complete online courses may also increase.
Learner Experiences and Behaviour in Online Learning
My study proposes to examine one telecommunications retail provider and examine the learner experiences and behaviour of staff using their current E-Learning system. As few studies have specifically examined this particular demographic, similar studies will be reviewed to assess whether their approaches and insights may add value to the study.
The challenge of this study will be in clearly identifying which e-learning system features (if any) positively influence staff motivation levels in completing their online courses. Martins, Gulikersw and Bastiaensw (2004, p.369) highlighted a shortcoming in most studies focusing on intrinsic motivation in that they were solely based on indirect measures, such as student’s self-ratings which were assessed via questionnaires. This will be taken into consideration when designing the research strategy for the study, which will not only examine staff experiences but also examine their behaviour when using their e-Learning systems. Ultimately this study will propose possible improvements to the organizations’ e-Learning system.
Background to the environment being studied
The telecommunication retail sector in Australia is represented by organizations such as Vodafone, Telstra Optus and Virgin Mobile. These organizations operate both online and traditional brick & mortar mobile phone retail stores that employ staff to sell mobile phone devices and connect customers to their telecommunications networks. The rate of change in this competitive sector is quite rapid as new mobile devices, promotions and mobile plans are introduced each month.
Underpinning theory
Constructivist Theory
From a broad perspective my research will be based on the constructivist theory of learning and instruction, in particular the work of Piaget, Vygotsky and Dewey who all recognized that understanding how thoughts are formed is key to understanding what counts as knowledge (Sawyer, 2006, p.137). Theoretical contributions to constructivism in my research will be centered on the theories of situated learning such as those of Greeno which emphasize the importance of knowledge presented in an authentic context, such as an E-Learning system located within a retail store that simulates authentic workplace environments and situations. Situated Learning also emphasizes the fact that learning requires social interaction and collaboration, features which are now available in many E-Learning systems.
Cognitive Apprenticeship
Brown, Collins & Duguid (1989) further developed Situated Learning theory by emphasizing the idea of cognitive apprenticeship which supports learning in a domain by enabling students to acquire, develop, and use cognitive tools in authentic domain activity. Questions arise as to the limitations of E-Learning system features, and whether successful online cognitive apprenticeship can be achieved through system features that simulate real mentors. Tisdale (2001) studied cognitive apprenticeship in a reading activity between a college student and child and noted the crucial importance of interpersonal relationships and their context in the success of effective learning. At this stage E-Learning systems are limited in not being able to totally replace the complex interactions we experience between humans; however E-Learning system features are able to effectively facilitate these interactions between humans, such as through voice and video functionality.
Next steps
- Examine through a more critical perspective the limitations of Constructivist and Situated learning theory
- Examine further readings on e-Learning motivation
- Begin to develop Research Strategy
New References:
Ellis, R.A., Goodyear, P. (2010) Students’ Experience of E-Learning in Higher Education. Routledge, NY & UK.
Martens, R.L., Gulikersw J, Bsetiaensw, T. (2004) The impact of intrinsic motivation on e-learning
in authentic computer tasks. Blackwell Publishing Ltd 2004 Journal of Computer Assisted Learning 20, pp368–376
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)