1 / 73

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. Collaborative learning without ICT Setting the scene

issac
Télécharger la présentation

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. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

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

More Related