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


  • 237 Views
  • Updated 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
  1. 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

  2. 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

  3. 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

  4. « Collaborative learning is in the air » « Everyone wants it. It is the instructional strategy, perhaps the strategy of the decade »

  5. What do we know about collaborative learning without ICT?What does the research say?

  6. 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.”

  7. 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?

  8. 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.

  9. 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.

  10. 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

  11. Integration larger learning environment

  12. 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).

  13. 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

  14. 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? • …

  15. But does this invoke relevant learning? • Second generation CSCL-research: • Focus on “affordances” • Attention paid to “design guidelines”

  16. Applying design guidelines • Shared learning objectives • Team responsibility • Individual responsibility • Equal opportunities • Level of competition or comparision.

  17. Applying design guidelines • Subtasks. • Individual differences • Blend group and face-to-face activities • Develop communication skills. • Monitor communication processes

  18. Design guidelines ~ 3 sets of variables Learner characteristics & support Task characteristics Group Characteristics

  19. 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

  20. Learning:Nature of dependendent variables • Level of interaction • Level of knowledge construction • Learning performance (test scores) • Level of critical thinking • Self & group efficacy

  21. Group characteristics

  22. Differential impact Group size small (8-10), average (11-13 , large (15-18)

  23. Level of interaction

  24. Task structure

  25. Roles • Pharmacy education • 5th year students • 5 months internship • Lack of integrated pharmaceutical knowledge

  26. Roles • Content roles: • Pharmacyst • Pharmacyst assistant • Theorist • Researcher • Intern • Communication roles: • Moderator • Question-asker • Summarizer • Source researcher

  27. Exchange

  28. 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

  29. 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

  30. 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

  31. Timing: introduction roles

  32. Timing: introduction roles

  33. 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

  34. Moderator

  35. Source

  36. 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

  37. Timing: introduction roles

  38. 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

  39. Differential impact roles

  40. Differential impact roles

  41. “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

  42. Tagging

  43. Tagging