Chapter 12

1. Chapter 12 Learning Together Virtually

2. Chapter 12 • Keep in mind that “there is not a great deal written about computer-supported collaborative learning (CSCL), we still do not have sufficient evidence to offer guidelines for it’s best use” (page 257) • There are many different factors such as individual vs. group, team composition, technology features, task assignments, participant roles, time to collaborate and teamwork skills that effect CSCL

3. What is Computer-SupportedCollaborative Learning (CSCL)? • Definition: Any instructional program in which 2-5 individuals work together on an instructional activity or assignment using digital technology to communicate

4. Blogs- Websites where people can write commentaries on an ongoing basis Breakout rooms- A conferencing facility that supports audio, whiteboard, polling, etc Chats- 2 or more people communicating by text at the same time Email-2 or more people communicating at different times Message Boards-a number of people communicating at different times by adding comments that remain on the board Online Conferencing- A number of people online at once with access to audio, whiteboard, polling, media displays and chat Wikis- A website that allows visitors to edit content (Can be controlled for access to a small group) Examples of CSCL

5. Individual vs. Group Outcomes • The outcomes that are measured are different between the two • Individual-Satisfaction rating, technology usage logs, participants statements and assessment (tests, essay or product) • Group- group perceptions of learning, products or decisions made by collaboration and team dialog

6. Individual vs. Group Outcomes • Keep in mind that a good team outcome doesn’t mean everyone on the team learned at equal levels • Lou, Abrami and d’Apollonia (2001) found that group performance is not necessarily predictive of individual performance (page 263) • Design goals based on group or individual performance

7. Individual vs. Group Outcomes • Factors in CSCL Outcomes • Technology Features • Team Sizes • Performance Evaluation Plans • Team Assignments

8. Optimizing Individual Outcomes • Lou, Abrami & d’Apollonia (2001) found that under optimal conditions that individual learning is better in collaborative setting than individual setting by a factor of .66 • They also found that there are 4 keys to this effect:

9. Optimizing Individual Outcomes • Provide team skills for students who lack experience in teamwork • Use specific collaborative learning structures that insure interdependence among team members • Create teams in heterogeneous pairs to promote involvement • Use collaborative tams when tasks are relatively near transfer

10. Other Factors • Lou, Abrami & d’Apollonia (2001) found that group products are better than individual products essentially saying that the sum is greater that the whole of the parts. • Jonassen, Lee, Yang & Laffey (2005) recommend that CSCL is best suited for ill-defined tasks where there is more than one write answer.

11. Virtual vs. Face-to-Face Group Decisions • Campbell & Stasser (2006) compared the accuracy of decisions from a 3-person groups in a face to face setting with 3 person groups collaborating synchronous chat. • They found that the chat group was correct 63% of the time compared to less than 20% in face to face.

12. Virtual vs. Face-to-Face Group Decisions • They found there were 2 major factors in the results • The “chat group” required more time which allowed for greater accuracy • The “chat group” could reference back to comments made in the chat room for review

13. Group Roles and Assignments • DeWeaver, Van Winckle and Valcke (2006) and Nussbaum (2005) compared roles and outcomes in a collaborative group and found that: • Outcomes were influenced by the instructions given to the team and the individual roles assigned • Both studies measured the quality of the discussions in the group so learning was not the outcome measured

14. Team-Building Skills And CSCL Outcomes • In the Lou, Abrami & d’Apollonia (2001) research, they found that better individual achievement outcome are associated with better teamwork skills. • This is also supported by Pritchard, Bizo & Stratford (2006) research.

15. Team-Building Skills And CSCL Outcomes • They found that team-skills training benefits lasted as long as the team was together and had to be re-built when individuals were assigned new teams • They also found that skills developed on a team don’t transfer well to other indicating that the chemistry on a team is important

16. Collaborative Structures & CSCL Outcomes • Research from Slavin (1983); Slavin, Hurley and Chamberlain (2003) and Lou, Abrami and d’Apollonia (2001) all support the idea that under the right conditions, students can learn more together than individually and need 2 critical elements • Structured Collaborative Assignment • Accountability for learning of each member of the group

17. Problem Based Learning (PBL) • Starting to become used in Universities and is a specialized form of collaborative learning • A PBL team follows a structured process where the team reviews a case, each member works on it and then the team reconvenes to apply the lessons of the case

18. Problem Based Learning:The Structure • Clarify the unknown terms • Define the Problem in the case • Brainstorm to analyze the problem & identify possible explanations • Critique the different explanations and work to draft description of problem • Define the learning issues • Engage in self directed study to fill in gaps specified by the learning issues • Meet with the team to share and develop final problem solution

19. Chapter 12 review • Jonassen, Lee, Yang & Laffey (2005) concluded, “More is unknown about the practice than is known. CSCL will constitute one of the pivotal research issues of the next decade (page 283)”

20. Chapter 12 review • There are enablers that may promote better outcomes: • Group process structures that foster accountability and participation of each member of a team • Assignment of far transfer problems to small heterogeneous groups of 3-5 member • Use of asynchronous facilities for outcomes that benefit from reflection and independent research • Team-skill training who need teamwork experience • Group assignments and roles that promote deeper processing • Clear guidance and objectives for team processing

21. Chapter 13 Who’s in Control

22. What is Learner Control • Learner Control is a condition in which the learner can select or manage elements of the lesson, such as the pacing, topics, sequencing and instructional methods. Asynchronous e-learning can provide various types learner control. • Remember (Chap 9) to always allow your learner control in pacing!!

23. Learner Control vs. Program Control • Unlike the classroom & synchronous learning- asynchronous learning can be designed to allow more learner control of: • Topics • Pace • Bypass lesson elements • Practice sessions

24. Three Types of Learner Control • Content Sequencing- Learner can control the order of lessons, topics and screens within a lesson • Pacing- Learner can control the amount of time spent on each lesson page • Access to Learning Support- Learner cancontrol instructionalcomponents of lessons such as examples or practice exercises

25. Course & Lesson Menus-allows learner to select specific lessons and topics within a lesson or course Links- Allows learner to access content from other sites on the internet or other sections of the course Pop-ups or Mouse-overs – Provide additional information without having to leave screen Button to Activate Forward, Backward and Quit- Permit control of pacing within a lesson and are standard features in e-learning Guided Tour- Overviews of course resources accessible from the main menu screen Common Navigational Techniques

26. Do Learners Make GoodInstructional Decisions • How accurately a learner determines his existing knowledge influences the kinds of decisions they make in a learner controlled environment • How accurately a learner determines his existing knowledge is called Calibration Accuracy • Glenberg et al. (1987) found that calibration correlation is close to zero, concluding “contrary to intuition, poor calibration of comprehension is the rule rather than the exception” (page 297) • Practice & Examples significantly improves calibration

27. Four Principles for Learner Control • Use learner control for learners with high prior knowledge and good metacognitive skills as well as in advanced lessons or courses • When learner control is used, design the default navigation options to lead to important course elements • Design some form of adaptive control that tailors learning to individual needs • Apply the Segmentation Principle (chap 9) by allowing control of pacing

28. Give Experienced Learners Control • Who benefits most from Lerner Control? • Learners with prior knowledge of the content and skills involved in the lesson • The training is a more advanced lesson in a course • Learners that have good metacognitive skills • The course is low in complexity

29. Evidence to Support • Young (1996) compared outcomes of learners with high and low metacognitive skills and found that learners with low metacognitive skills scored much lower and too much control can be detrimental to to learning

30. Make Important Instructional Events the Default • IF you opt for more learner control it is important to set important instructional elements as the default. • This requires the learner to make choices to bypass practices • Schnackenberg & Sullivan (2000) shows that when key elements are included in the default, learners achieve higher scores than those who perform the practice less

31. Consider Adaptive Control • Aka: Personalized Instruction • There are four different types of Adaptive Control • Static Branching • Dynamic Branching • Advisement • Shared Control

32. Static Branching • Is an early type of adaptive control still used today • Based on a pre-assessment or pre-test • Branches learner to different lessons based on results of pre-assessment

33. Dynamic Branching • Similar to Static Control • Does a practice first then a pretest • Branches learner to a new practice based on result of pretest • Harder practice if first test result is positive • Easier practice if first test result is negative • Salden, Paas, Broers and Van Merrienboer (2004) confirm the advantages of using Dynamic Branching in e-learning

34. Adaptive Advisement • Still provides the learner with control • Gives generic advise to the learner based on results of a practice • Ex. “We recommend you take these topics in the order listed” • Bell & Kozlowski (2002) showed the advantages of this technique • They show that when a learner is guided this way they spend 25% more time studying and practices twice as much compared to learner controlled program

35. Give Pacing Control • As in Chapter 9-give lessons in segments that allow a learner to go at their own pace (Mayer & Chandler 2001) • Manage the cognitive load for learners so that they are not over-loaded

36. What We Don’t Know • Even with the evidence we have, there is still much to learn about the relationship between: • Prior Knowledge • Metacognitive skills • Navigational control