Analyzing Group Work Dynamics in Asynchronous Online Courses: Insights and Strategies

1. A Framework for Looking at Group Work in Asynchronous Online Courses Dr. Susan Lowes Teachers College/Columbia University VSS, November 2009

2. Background • iNACOL standards: • “The teacher plans, designs and incorporates strategies to encourage active learning, interaction, participation and collaboration in the online environment.” • Of the fifteen elements in that standard, three refer to student-student interaction: • Facilitating interaction among students • Engaging students in “team problem-solving” • Promoting learning through group interaction

3. Goals of this research • To look at groups working online and ask: • How do groups manage themselves in an online environment? • How is knowledge collectively built? How do groups establish common frames of reference, resolve discrepancies in understanding, and come to a joint understanding? • What do such 21st-century skills as critical thinking and teamwork look like in online environment? • To take analytical approaches from f2f group work and see how/if they adapt to analyzing group work online • To contribute to the design of online learning that leads to high levels of engagement and critical thinking

4. Site of this research • A series of one- and two-year courses offered online by the International Baccalaureate (IB) through VHS • More than one section of the same course • Virtual classroom model with emphasis on various types of student-student interaction

5. Methodology • Discourse analysis, based on work by Brigid Barron in analyzing problem-solving in f2f classrooms • Three styles of working together: • Parallel interaction • Associative interaction • Cooperative interaction • Four responses for reactions to initial proposals: • Accept • Ask for clarification • Elaborate • Reject

6. Our adaptations • We found that the problem-solving style of the group depended in part on the design of the activity, so we looked at both, and at how/if they were linked • We found that we needed to look at the way aproposal was initiated as well as the response: • Asking • Telling • Telling with a question (asking for consent) • We found we need to add a category that we called “course correction,” which was generally the facilitator but could be a student

7. Types of problem-solving styles

8. Parallel collaboration • No monitoring of others’ contributions • No interchange of ideas • Final product is cumulation of individual contributions

9. Associative collaboration • Some monitoring of others’ contributions • Some interchange of ideas • Final product is still a cumulation of individual contributions

10. Synergistic collaboration • Monitoring of others’ contributions • Interchange of ideas • Final project jointly created

11. Design of group activities

12. Cumulations • Develop dictionaries, bibliographies, glossaries, timelines, family trees • Tasks are simultaneous • No necessary order of contributions • No necessary end • No need for interaction • No coordination necessary

13. Jig-saw projects • Each student works on one piece • Students may have roles • Tasks may be serial or simultaneous • All pieces are needed to create the whole • BUT some jigsaw projects are really coordinated cumulative projects

14. Finding #1 • There are actually two sets of activities that demand problem-solving styles • Problem-solving styles for working together as a group • Problem-solving styles for responding to the content of the assignment • A group’s style may differ for each

15. Finding #2 • Groups that successfully completed the task initiated the process by Telling • Groups that successful completed the task responded by Accepting • Groups that successfully completed therefore: • Used an associative style for organizing themselves BUT THEN • Used a parallel style for getting the work done • There was almost no use of a synergistic style, except occasionally between two students

16. Finding #3 • This was partly because the designer believed the activity necessitated synergistic collaboration, BUT the students were able to (and did) use a parallel or associative style

17. Finding #4 • Orderly turn-taking, which organizes coordination in f2f conversations, is difficult in online environment • Violations of turn-taking include overlapping posts, posts to previous threads, private and public threads • This was because students were in different time zones and therefore online at different times • And because of the constraints of Blackboard

18. Finding #5 • Group work online calls for different 21st century skills than group work f2f • Key complaints for f2f group work: • Too much socializing: not an issue online • Freeloaders: a big issue online • Bossy leaders: a strength online • The only groups that completed the tasks had one student who took charge, assigned tasks (Telling), asked for agreement--always granted (Accepting), and then collected the work at the end

19. Implications for instructional designers • Separations in time and distance mean that the design of group activities cannot be serial but must be simultaneous • If designers want group projects to be synergistic, they need to design them so that the problem-solving style cannot be parallel • If students are really to hash out things together, they need time, so group projects should last more than a week but should be scaffolded so that the students don’t wait until the last minute to do the work

20. Implications for facilitators/teachers • Groups need to be small because asynchronous coordination across time and space is difficult • Students need specific instructions for how to work in groups online because f2f strategies do not work • Freeloading is the biggest issue and students need to know what to do if a student doesn’t show up • Acting as a “boss” is necessary and needs no apology; one person should be assigned as “boss” for each project/week/task, etc. • Critical thinking happens in one-to-one exchanges, not many-to-many or even one-to-many so encourage peer interactions

21. References • Brigid Barron, “Achieving Coordination in Collaborative Problem-Solving Groups,” The Journal of the Learning Sciences9 (4), 2000: 403-436. • Dazhi Yang, Jennifer Richardson, Brian F. French, James D. Lehman, “The Development of a Content Analysis Model for Assessing Students’ Cognitive Learning in Asynchronous Online Discussions,” 2009, manuscript of paper submitted for publication in Educational Technology Research & Development. • Research assistance: Seungoh Paek and Devayani Tirthali, Program in Computers, Communication, Technology, and Education, Teachers College/Columbia University.