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.
Wednesday, September 22, 2010
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)