evidence based practices in elearning collaborative learning in higher education empirical evidence n.
Download
Skip this Video
Loading SlideShow in 5 Seconds..
Evidence-based practices in elearning. Collaborative learning in higher education: empirical evidence. PowerPoint Presentation
Download Presentation
Evidence-based practices in elearning. Collaborative learning in higher education: empirical evidence.

Loading in 2 Seconds...

play fullscreen
1 / 73

Evidence-based practices in elearning. Collaborative learning in higher education: empirical evidence. - PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 236 Views
  • Uploaded on

Evidence-based practices in elearning. Collaborative learning in higher education: empirical evidence. Prof. dr. Martin Valcke http://allserv.ugent.be/~mvalcke/CV/CVMVA.htm Hamburg February 4, 2007 . Structure. Collaborative learning without ICT Setting the scene

loader
I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
capcha
Download Presentation

Evidence-based practices in elearning. Collaborative learning in higher education: empirical evidence.


An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript
evidence based practices in elearning collaborative learning in higher education empirical evidence

Evidence-based practices in elearning. Collaborative learning in higher education: empirical evidence.

Prof. dr. Martin Valcke

http://allserv.ugent.be/~mvalcke/CV/CVMVA.htm

Hamburg

February 4, 2007

structure
Structure
  • Collaborative learning without ICT
  • Setting the scene
  • But does it lead to learning?
  • Group characteristics
  • Task characteristics
    • Scripting
    • Roles
    • Tagging
  • Student characteristics & support: peer tutoring
  • Conclusions
conclusions
Conclusions
  • Collaborative learning: don’t forget « lessons learned »
  • Collaborative learning is part of larger learning environment
  • Adding structure is the key: roles, scripting, tagging
  • Coaching, tutoring, … has an impact
  • Management issues
slide4
« Collaborative learning is in the air »

« Everyone wants it. It is the instructional strategy, perhaps the strategy of the decade »

collaborative learning without ict
Collaborative learning without ICT?
  • Meta-analysis collaborative learning research
    • Slavin (1996)
    • Johnson & Johnson (1989)
  • “The research has an external validity and a generalizability rarely found in the social sciences.”
collaborative learning without ict1
Collaborative learning without ICT?
  • Consistent and overwhelming positive impact on performance, motivation, social skills, development of metacognition, etc.
  • But, why has it not been implemented to a larger extent?
design guidelines
Design guidelines
  • Garantee that there are shared learning objectives in a team
  • Build on team responsibility to reach the goals.
  • Build individual responsibility to reach goals.
  • Guarantee equal opportunities in the team activities.
  • Embed a level of competition and/or comparision.
design guidelines1
Design guidelines
  • Break down larger tasks into subtasks.
  • Take into account individual differences (level, interest, intentions, ...).
  • Blend group activities with face-to-face activities.
  • Develop communication skills.
  • Monitor communication processes.
setting the scene
Setting the scene
  • University
  • Large groups of 1st year students (N=286)
  • Online learning environment
  • Computer Supported Collaborative Learning (CSCL): part of this environment
  • Course ‘Instructional Sciences’
  • 35 groups of 8 students working in online groups
but does this invoke relevant learning
But does this invoke relevant learning?
  • Collaboration does not lead automatically to high quality learning.
  • There is a need guidance and online support in CSCL settings that is comparable to the need of classroom support in face-to-face settings (Lazonder, Wilhelm, & Ootes, 2003).
but does this invoke relevant learning1
But does this invoke relevant learning?
  • First generation CSCL-research:
    • Naive use of cooperative learning
    • Medium orientation
    • Neglection of context / individual / objectives
    • Over-estimation of potential technology
does it invoke relevant learning
Does it invoke relevant learning?
  • First generation:
    • Management problems
    • No insight into structure of dicsussion
    • Low task focus (Henri, 1982)
    • Low levels of cognitive processing: new facts, concepts; hardly theory construction, application, evaluation
    • Time on task problem
    • What with students who are not active?
but does this invoke relevant learning2
But does this invoke relevant learning?
  • Second generation CSCL-research:
    • Focus on “affordances”
    • Attention paid to “design guidelines”
applying design guidelines
Applying design guidelines
  • Shared learning objectives
  • Team responsibility
  • Individual responsibility
  • Equal opportunities
  • Level of competition or comparision.
applying design guidelines1
Applying design guidelines
  • Subtasks.
  • Individual differences
  • Blend group and face-to-face activities
  • Develop communication skills.
  • Monitor communication processes
design guidelines 3 sets of variables
Design guidelines ~ 3 sets of variables

Learner characteristics

& support

Task

characteristics

Group

Characteristics

design guidelines 3 sets of variables1
Design guidelines ~ 3 sets of variables
  • Group:
    • Size
    • level of interaction
  • Task characteristics:
    • Nature of task (open, theme)
    • Roles (content)
    • Roles (communication)
    • Tagging
    • Timing of role assignment
  • Learner: characteristics and support
learning nature of dependendent variables
Learning:Nature of dependendent variables
  • Level of interaction
  • Level of knowledge construction
  • Learning performance (test scores)
  • Level of critical thinking
  • Self & group efficacy
group size
Differential impactGroup size

small (8-10), average (11-13 , large (15-18)

roles
Roles
  • Pharmacy education
  • 5th year students
  • 5 months internship
  • Lack of integrated pharmaceutical knowledge
roles1
Roles
  • Content roles:
    • Pharmacyst
    • Pharmacyst assistant
    • Theorist
    • Researcher
    • Intern
  • Communication roles:
    • Moderator
    • Question-asker
    • Summarizer
    • Source researcher
slide35

ICS

Integrated Curriculum Score

S. TIMMERS, M. VALCKE*, K. DE MIL & W.R.G. BAEYENS (in press).

The Impact of Computer Supported Collaborative Learning on Internship

Outcomes of Pharmacy Students. Interactive Learning Environments

slide36

LKC

Level knowledge Construction

S. TIMMERS, M. VALCKE*, K. DE MIL & W.R.G. BAEYENS (in press).

The Impact of Computer Supported Collaborative Learning on Internship

Outcomes of Pharmacy Students. Interactive Learning Environments

timing roles
Timing roles
  • 1ste year course “instructional sciences”
  • N 250
  • 20 discussion groups
  • Transcripts of the entire 12 week discussion period
  • 4 discussion themes of 3 weeks each
  • About 4818 messages or 60450 lines of text
roles2
Roles
  • Starter: start off the discussion, give new impulses every time the discussions slack off
  • Moderator: monitor the discussions, stimulate other students, ask critical questions, inquire for opinions
  • Theoretician: bring in theory, ensure all relevant theoretical concepts are used in the discusion
  • Sourcesearcher: seek external information on the topics, go beyond the scope of course reader
  • Summarizer: post interim summaries, make provisional conclusions, post final summary
gunawardena lowe anderson 1997
Gunawardena, Lowe, & Anderson (1997)
  • Level 1: sharing/comparing of information
  • Level 2: the discovery and exploration of dissonance or inconsistency among ideas, concepts or statements
  • Level 3: negotiation of meaning / co-construction of knowledge
  • Level 4: testing and modification of proposed synthesis or co-construction
  • Level 5: agreement statement(s) / applications of newly constructed meaning
timing introduction roles3
Timing: introduction roles
  • Role/No-Role condition reaches significantly higher levels of knowledge construction in two themes
  • Even when the role support is cut back
slide48
“There is a differential impact of the different roles”

Differential impact roles

Source Searcher

=

Theoretician

+

Summarizer

+++

Moderator

+

=

Starter

No role

+

Ref.cat.

No role condition

tagging2
Tagging
  • Aims of tagging:
    • it obliges students to reflect upon the nature of their contribution and on how it will add to the ongoing discussion
    • the labels improve the outline of the discussion and indicate the predominance or absence of one or more thinking types
  • Example: De Bono’s (1991) thinking hatsin view of developing critical thinking
tagging3
Tagging
  • Garrison (1992) identifies five stages of critical thinking:
  • Problem identification
  • Problem definition
  • Problem exploration
  • Problem evaluation/applicability
  • Problem integration
tagging4
Tagging
  • 3th-year university students
  • enrolled for the course ‘Instructional Strategies’ (N=35)
  • 6 groups of 6 team members

Tag posts by a thinking hat

No tags to posts required

tagging5
Tagging
  • Evidence for critical thinking in both conditions
  • Significant deeper critical thinking in experimental condition (F(1, 416)=364.544; p<.001)
tagging6
Tagging
  • Patterns are quite similar for both conditions
  • Experimental condition
    • more focused discussions (F(1, 415)=1550.510; p<.001)
    • more new info and ideas (F(1, 352)=21.955; p<.001)
    • more linking facts ideas (F(1, 31)=3.024; p<.092)
impact of tagging
Impact of tagging
  • Multinomial logistic regressions indicate that
  • being in the experimental condition increases the probability of engaging in in-depth discussions radically(p<.001)
  • experimental students post 2.73 as many messages adding new problem-related information to the discussion (p=.001)
  • experimental students were 2.95 times more likely to add new ideas for discussion (p=.009).
  • linking ideas and critical assessment occur rarely. When it occurs, it is in the experimental condition.
impact of tagging over time
Impact of tagging over time
  • Experimental students show a rather constant level of critical thinking
  • Control students show a decrease during problem identification (F(1, 416)=1408.838; p<.001) and exploration(F(1, 415)=1101.513; p<.001)
slide59
But ….
  • Studies with freshman: no significant impact.
  • Tagging interferes with knowledge construction process.
  • BUT … tutoring helps
slide60
But …
  • More critical thinking in labeling condition after correction for the different tutor styles
    • Overall depth of CT
    • Importance
    • Discussion of ambiguities
    • Input of new information
    • Linking of information
    • Critical assessment
    • Defining the problem
    • Integrating new knowledge
support peer tutors
Support: peer tutors
  • Given critical results of some CSCL-studies, demand for structure:
    • Scripting (roles, tagging, …)
    • Facilitators (Bonk, Wisher, & Lee, 2004; Garrison, Anderson, & Archer, 2000; Rickard, 2004; Salmon, 2000)
    • Prior research, however, revealed that peer tutors were mainly engaged in social support, while less attention was paid to stimulating ‘knowledge construction’ and ‘personal development’(De Smet, Van Keer, & Valcke, in press)
    • Therefore extra support for tutors
method
Method
  • Effect study: Impact of labeling on patterns in tutor support.
  • E-moderating model(Salmon, 2000)
peer tutoring
Peer tutoring
  • Cross-age peer tutoring blended in with online discussion groups
  • One peer clearly takes a supportive role
  • Fourth-year students help freshmen
  • Ratio = 1/10
  • Open-ended group assignments
  • 2 weeks discussion per theme
  • 1 trial discussion and 4 discussion themes
3 tutor training conditions
3 tutor training conditions
  • Control (N=39)
  • All-round instructions, No labeling requirements,
  • No pre-service exercises, Focus groups
  • Labeling (N=18)
  • E-moderating instructions, Labelling requirements
  • Pre-service exercises, Focus groups
  • Non-labeling (N=17)
  • E-moderating instructions, No labeling requirements,
  • Pre-service exercises, Focus groups
labeling tutoring activity
Labeling tutoring activity
  • Labeling involves self-monitoring
  • E-moderating taxonomy (Salmon, 2000)
  • Access and motivation (Step 1)
  • Socialisation (Step 2)
  • Information-exchange (Step 3)
  • Knowledge construction (Step 4)
  • Personal development (Step 5)
impact of labeling in tutoring
Impact of labeling in tutoring
  • Multinomial logistic regression analysis >>
  • Variables treated as nominal
  • Independent of the training condition, tutors filled all the roles required of e-moderators
  • In each training condition, vast majority for ‘information-exchange’ (step 3)
impact of labeling in tutoring1
Impact of labeling in tutoring
  • Compared to the control condition, both the labelling and non-labeling condition positively influenced the adoption of tutoring support that stimulates:
    • ‘socialisation’ (step 2)
    • ‘information-exchange’ (step 3)
    • ‘personal development’ (step 5)
  • Labelling enhanced tutors’ facilitation for ‘personal development’ (step 5)
conclusions1
Conclusions
  • Collaborative learning: don’t forget « lessons learned »
  • Collaborative learning is part of larger learning environment
  • Adding structure is the key: roles, scripting, tagging
  • Coaching, tutoring, … has an impact
  • Management issues
publications
Publications
  • De Smet, M., Van Keer, H., & Valcke, M. (in press). Blending asynchronous discussion groups and peer tutoring in higher education: An exploratory study of online peer tutoring behaviour. Accepted for publication in Computers and Education.
  • De Smet, M., Van Keer, H., & Valcke, M. (in press). Cross-age peer tutors in asynchronous discussion groups: A study of the evolution in tutor support. Accepted for publication in Instructional Science.
  • De Wever, B., Schellens, T.,Valcke, M & Van Keer, H. (2006). Content analysis schemes to analyze transcripts of online asynchronous discussion groups: a review. Computers & Education, 46(1), 6-28.
  • De Wever, B., Van Keer, H., Schellens, T., & Valcke, M. (in press). Applying multilevel modelling on content analysis data: Methodological issues in the study of the impact of role assignment in asynchronous discussion groups. Accepted for publication in Learning and Instruction.
  • De Wever, B., Van Winckel, M. & Valcke, M. (in press). Discussing patient management online: The impact of roles on knowledge construction for students interning at the paediatric ward. Accepted for publication in Advances in Health Sciences Education.
  • Schellens, T. & Valcke, M. (2005). Collaborative learning in asynchronous discussion groups: What about the impact on cognitive processing? Computers in Human Behavior, 21(6), 957-975.
publications1
Publications
  • Schellens, T. & Valcke, M. (2006). Fostering knowledge construction in university students through asynchronous discussion groups. Computers & Education. 46(4), 349-370.
  • Schellens, T., Van Keer, H. & Valcke, M. (2005). The impact of role assignment on knowledge construction in asynchronous discussion groups: a multilevel analysis. Small Group Research, 36, 704-745.
  • Schellens, T., Van Keer, H., & Valcke, M. (2007). Learning in asynchronous discussion groups: A multilevel approach to study the influence of student, group and task characteristics. Accepted for publication in Journal of Behavior and Information Technology. 26(1), 55-71.
  • Schellens, T., Van Keer, H., De Wever, B., Valcke, M. (in press). Tagging Thinking Types in Asynchronous Discussion Groups: Effects on Critical Thinking. Accepted for publication in International Journal of Interactive Learning Environments.
  • Timmers, S., Valcke, M., De Mil, K. & Baeyens, W.R.G. (in press). CSCLE and internships of pharmacy students - The Impact of Computer Supported Collaborative Learning on Internship Outcomes of Pharmacy Students. Accepted for publication in International Journal of Interactive Learning Environments.
  • Valcke, M. & De Wever, B. (2006). Information and communication technologies in higher education: Evidence-based practices in medical education. Medical Teacher, 28, 40-48.
evidence based practices in elearning collaborative learning in higher education empirical evidence1

Evidence-based practices in elearning. Collaborative learning in higher education: empirical evidence.

Prof. dr. Martin Valcke

http://allserv.ugent.be/~mvalcke/CV/CVMVA.htm

Hamburg

February 4, 2007