Mary Annette Rose Ball State University 30 May 2003

1. Interactions and perceptions of distributed groups interacting in an asynchronous computer conference Mary Annette Rose Ball State University 30 May 2003

2. Have you ever wondered… ? … if the way you organize groups influences the quality of their interactions, thinking, and learning? … how much of the students’ resources were used to “engage learning issues” as opposed to “coordinate” group work? Faculty ROLE

3. Research Questions • Are there differences in the dialogue (functions, cognitive skills, and levels of processing) between cooperative and collaborative learning approaches? • What are the patterns of productive interactions over time? How do they differ under the two approaches? • What are the group’s perceptions of interdependence and intersubjectivity? Do they differ under these two approaches? Faculty ROLE

4. Peer Directed Strategies Cooperative Teacher-structured Roles assigned Process specified Close monitoring Cognitive Conflict Collaborative Student-structured Roles negotiated Process negotiated Sporadic monitoring Negotiating Mutual Understandings Interdependence Intersubjectivity Faculty ROLE

5. Model of Research Study Web-based Course Faculty ROLE

6. Research Context Technology: Use & Assessment • First offering of a Web-based course • Fall 2000 • Graduate level, 3-credit • Goal “Students will develop the abilities to assess the impact of products and systems.” ITEA, 2000, p.133 Faculty ROLE

7. Research Participants: Students • 20 of 26 students returned informed consent forms • Off-campus & on-campus (all online) • Degree Sought • Health and wellness (N=14) • Audiology (N=3) • Technology education (N=3) • Relevant Experience • 5% had previously taken an online class • 80% had little to no experience with Blackboard • 67% had formal training with group process/dynamics • 100% reported moderate to high levels of proficiency with group process skills Faculty ROLE

8. Six Heterogeneous Groups • Individuals assigned to 6 groups controlling for: • Group process skill • Major • Sex • Location • Groups randomly assigned to treatment • Cooperative groups (N=3) • Roles & close monitoring (2 to 3 days) • Schools Specialist • Health & Wellness Specialist • Economics Specialist • Web Specialist • Lead Editor • Collaborative groups (N=3) • Group process is negotiated, no roles assigned • Monitored every 4 to 6 days Faculty ROLE

9. Problem-based Learning (PBL) Conduct a technology assessment of the health and wellness implications of computer use by children (as if for the U.S. Department of Education.) Deliver a formal online report that makes recommendations for school districts to promote lifelong wellness. Faculty ROLE

11. Distribution of Messages Study Total = 783 Messages No Difference Significant Differences Faculty ROLE

12. Distribution of Messages 5.2 messages per student per week Faculty ROLE

13. Study Comparisons: Messages Face to Face …………………66 to 70% Hillman, 1999 Faculty ROLE

14. Content Analyses of Messages • Unitized the Message • First, into paragraphs • Then, by single variable (i.e., function or skill) • No smaller than a sentence • Coders Trained and Tested • Developed rater expertise • Reliability analysis (Cronbach alpha) • Ranged from .74 to .89 • Cognitive skill Units coded by at least two coders • Disagreements judged by consensus or third coder Faculty ROLE

15. Function Variable Cognitive • Learning process • Learning content, issues, and goals Organization • Coordinating joint activity • Management and logistics Metacognitive • General knowledge and skills Social • Off-task statements Henri, F., & Rigault, C.R. (1996) Collaborative distance learning and computer conferencing. In T.t. Liao (Ed.) Advanced educational technology: Research issues and future potential (pp. 45-76). Series F: computer and Systems Sciences, 145. New York: Springer-Verlag. Faculty ROLE

16. Function by Group Structure N = 2,138 Function Units Faculty ROLE

17. Study Comparisons: Function Faculty ROLE

18. Function Over Time Cognitive Organization Metacognitive Social

19. Cognitive Skill Variable Elementary Clarification • Identifying the problem space • Asking relevant questions In-depth Clarification • Identifying assumptions • Establishing referential criteria • Deferring judgment Inference • Applying criteria to draw a conclusion Judgment • Making decisions, appreciations, and criticisms Strategies • Proposing or acting Faculty ROLE

20. Cognitive Skill by Group Structure N = 1,341 Cognitive Skill Units Faculty ROLE

21. Study Comparisons: Cognitive Skill Faculty ROLE

22. Cognitive Skills Over Time

23. Deep Processing Over Time N = 1,341 Cognitive Skill Units Faculty ROLE

24. Cohesion of Messages Over Time Faculty ROLE

25. Perception Survey Results Faculty ROLE

26. Limitations • Case study, generalize to similar others • Picture not perfect reflection • Only 20 of 26 students participated • Communication occurs in other modes • Thanksgiving holiday at week 4 • Statistical analyses are exploratory and liberal • Hawthorne effect, students aware of observation Faculty ROLE

27. Implications for Facilitators PBL requiring the delivery of a group product • Promotes learning among distributed learners • groups had high perceptions of interdependence • groups were task driven • Demands learner resources to coordinate group interaction • Only 41% of dialogue was about learning and learning issues • Over time groups’ perceptions of intersubjectivity increased Faculty ROLE

28. Implications for Facilitators Assignroles because… • May establish common understandings about • group process and • individual responsibility • learning issues • Alleviate learners’ concerns about coordinating joint learning activity • May provide the catalyst on which others can interconnect messages Faculty ROLE

29. Implications for Facilitators Initially explain and model substantive communication • Define types of dialogue • Examples and nonexamples • Interrelate or weave postings Faculty ROLE

30. Implications for Facilitators Use interventions that encourage critical thinking: • Identify and question assumptions • Entertain possibilities and defer judgment • Justify assertions and conclusions • Provide elaborate explanations • Detect and classify relationships • Interrelate information Faculty ROLE

31. Instructor Units by Function Faculty ROLE

32. Cognitive Function Over Time Faculty ROLE

33. Organization Function Over Time Faculty ROLE

34. Conclusions: Overall Regardless of group structure, PBL conferences were student-driven • students contributed 90% of messages • an average of 5.2 messages/student/week • groups had high perceptions of interdependence • groups were task driven • perceptions of intersubjectivity increased over time Faculty ROLE

35. Are there differences between cooperative and collaborative learning approaches? • Global differences in function, cognitive skill, and levels of processing could NOT be attributed to group structure. • Cohesion of messages higher in cooperative structure Faculty ROLE

36. What are the patterns of productive interactions over time?How do they differ under the two approaches? Functions and cognitive skills changed over time • Cognitive dialogue more prominent during mid activity • Organization dialogue more prominent during final week • Inferencing increases, strategies decrease Cooperative structure offered advantages during the initial weeks as evidenced by: • Higher levels of deep processing • Higher levels of cohesive messages Faculty ROLE

37. What are the group’s perceptions of interdependence and intersubjectivity? Do they differ under these two approaches? Interdependence was high • At mid and final • Across group structure Intersubjectivity • Higher in cooperative structure at mid activity • Increased over time in both structures Faculty ROLE