Dirkx & SmithCase study, group work online

Dirkx, J.M. & Smith, R.O. (2004) p132-159

Thinking out of a bowl of spaghetti: Learning to Learn in online collaborative groups

Chapter 6 in Roberts, T.S. Online collaborative learning: theory and Practice

Students need orientation in how to do collaborative learning, and the value of it, and how to do it online.

Cooperative v collaborative learning

Coop, p137 – ‘learning is regarded as an individual effort that is facilitated by participation in the group’

Collaborative, p 137 ‘In collaborative learning, students call into question, through self-reflective & self critique, assumptions, values, beliefs, symbols and rules of conduct that characterise their existing way of meaning making’  teachers de-authorize themselves p142 ‘ group members are encouraged to assume responsibility for their own structure and direction’

Methods

Case study approach

26 students assigned to small groups. Well defined task.  Allowed to meet f-f only one group did so.  Orientation for 2 weeks, group work for 16 weeks.  Experienced tutor available. 

Source of data.  Interviews, student journals, discussion and chat transcripts.

Findings

‘the students in our case described powerful emotional responses to what was occurruing with their small groups’

p144

two orientations to authrority emerge, one remains with the tutor the other to the group

p145

‘the gradual development of interdependence and intersubjectivity requires the cultivation of a culture of intimacy within the group. Intimacy involves an ability to open oneself up to another, as well as being receptive to otherness’

p148

quote from a student about feeling that you are meeting all the time ‘ you are never not meeting with your group. You turn on the computer and the group is there. In the form of email messages and postings to the discussion board’

Conclusions about CSCL

Subjectivity and intersubjectivity p151 ‘ need for group members to reconstruct a sense of identity that is grounded in the intersubjective realities of their group contexts’

Associated emotional dynamics

Have to reach concensus and this is not always easy

P155 ‘ Implementation of collaborative learning ….., will not be successful unless the broader contextual and systematic issues are also attended to’

p155  there is 'a psychological resistance to the need to move from a subjective to a more intersubjective form of identity'

Gordon Smith et al

Gordon Smith, G., Sorensen, C., Gump, A., Heindel, A.J., Caris, M., Martinez, C.D. (2011)

Overcoming student resistance to group work: Online versus face-to-face

Internet and Higher Education, 14, 2,121-128

Group membership.

Diverse employment background, therefore bring variety of knowledge to the group. one student in each skilled at production

Advice to groups

Charter for norms and responsibilities

Advised to have weekly synchronous meetings

Data sources

Survey

1. Previous experience of OL collaboration ( yes/no)
2. Need to know other members skills  and wok habits from the start (LS5)
3. Able to resolve all logistical problems (LS5)
4. I like working in groups (LS5)
5. I think group work is beneficial (LS5)
6. I think collaborating online is great, as there are many synchronous tools available (LS5)

Communication more difficult online ( sometimes tortuous)

More maladaptive groups online

Participation more marked as a problem in the reports from OL groups

Student journals

12 themes

communication, participation, group member attributes, team support, group assessment, group member assessment, personal feelings about working in groups, pressure, feedback, assignment difficulty, task delegation, others.

Discussion

Need to persuade students of the value of group work

Frustration Capdeferro & Romero

Are Online Learners Frustrated with Collaborative Learning Experiences?

Capdeferro,N., & Romero, M (2012)

The International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning,13,2 p26-43

Aim (focuses on frustration) p26 ‘to characterize the feelings of frustration as negative emotion among online learners engaged in on-line computer supported collaborative learning (CSCL) experiences and , moreover, to identify the sources to which learners attribute their frustration’

Frustration

Conceptually defined as p27 ‘a negative emotion aroused upon encountering an obstacle in the achievement of a task, goal, or expectation, or in satisfying one’s needs’ from Mandler(1975) and ‘is one of the most commonly mentioned negative emotions associated with studying online.

P28 ‘In online CSCL students’ frustration could be considered at the intersection of the frustration involved with both collaborative learning and online education’

The study

40 students on a master’s degree program on e-learning, using text based tools and email. Task was collaborative writing of a paper. Groups of 2-4, duration of task 2-4 weeks, several tasksDoesn’t say whether students knew each other or met face to face

Developed a survey instrument specifically to study frustration online – 6 sections

1. Demographics

2. Prior experience of online

3. Attitudes and conceptions of teamwork

4. Open question (1) p30 ‘ wherein students could describe their online collaborative experience in their master’s program’

5. Sources (4 categories) of frustration ( based on Dillenberg,1999 of what is involved in CSCL)

a. The learning situation

b. The interactions

c. The processes

d. The effects

6. Questions (6) p30 ‘that assessed how frustrated the individual was (level and frequency of variables) and how this frustration affected his perception of participating in appropriate training that would satisfy his personal and professional ambitions (affect variable)

Findings

Experience of frustration ( Section 6)

1. Level of frustration 3(v.low), 9(low), 12(medium), 11(high), 5(v.high)

2. Frustration perception 7(v.rarely), 16(rarely), 7(frequently) ,3(very frequently)

3. ‘Sources for frustration with regard to the perception of participating in an appropriate and satisfying training program’ 12(none),4(neutral),10(quite)

correlations 1&2, 2&3,1&3 all significant

attitude is the only significant predictor

Sources (Section 5) and cross referenced with (Section 4 the open question) ie qual confirmed by quant

· Commitment imbalance (23)

o Free riders, competence level (KRO ? as commitment)

· Unshared goals(9)

o Just pass or achieve best possible

· Communication difficulties(8)

o p35 ‘35% characterised by multiple and somewhat patterns of schizophrenic patterns of interaction’ – KRO how has this been arrived at?

· Negotiation problems (7)

o People who are intolerant of others

· Individual contributions imbalance(6)

· Excess time spent and wokload (6)

· Conflict and problems in reaching concensus (6)

· Assessment imbalance (4)

· Misunderstandings (2)

· Lack of instructor support/orientation(2)

Discussion

· Communication: discusses by comparing with f-f , time, sense of reality, immediate social presence, but doesn’t support this with any actual evidence , particularly qualitative evidence

· Negotiation: p35 Skill in learning collaboratively means knowing when and how to question, inform and motivate one’s teammates, knowing how to mediate and facilitate conversation, and knowing how to deal with conflicting opinions (McManus & Aitken, 1995).

Raise student awareness of the value (learning and workplace) of being able to successfully collaborate with others.

Dillenbourgh chapter 1

Dillenbourg, P. (1999)

What do you mean by collaborative learning?

In P. Dillenbourg (Ed) Collaborative-learning: Cognitive and Computational Approaches

P1-19

Oxford: Elsevier

Term - No shared usage. In the context leaning P reckons that it is best to think in terms of the following 3 dimension

1. scale of the situation ( group size and time scale) ,

nb CSCL in general refers to a group of more than 40.

4 sub heading but they are all, to an extent, interrelated.

Frameworks depend on scale psychology for small groups, social psychology for larger groups with sociology, ethnology, anthropology for larger scales. From this view cognitive and social have been distinct until notion of distributed cognition (KRO ? group dynamics – does the same apply),

notion of culture p2 now applied to describe the common grounds built by peers in interaction’ ‘ e.g. p3 ‘ if one talks about culture built by two subjects after an our of interaction the term culture acquires a cultural flavour’ but during transfer across different scales, theses concepts undergo deformations’

Dialogue with ones self – is it a form of collaboration ? self explanation versus explanation with others. Chapter 6 did not find any real differences p 3 ‘ authors did not find any real evidence that the interactivity of real explanation brings any benefit compared to self explanation’

Unit of analysis ‘ This evolution of research, where a group can be viewed as a unit or the individual as a group, indicates that the very notion of ‘scale’ actually changes: it moves from being a property of the object to a propoerrty of the observer, who selects the most appropriate unit of analysis’

2. What do we mean by learning ?

p4/5 “ The variety of uses of the word ‘learning’ reflect two distinct understandings of ‘collaborative learning’:

· is it a pedagogical method’ and therefore prescribed

· or a psychological process , the mechanism by which we learn.

D argues against both views

· take the ‘mechanism view’ need to perform activities which trigger learning whether as an individual or with peers. i.e. p5 ‘interaction among subjects generates extra activities ( explanation, disagreement, mutual regulation…) which trigger extra cognitive mechanisms ( knowledge elicitation, internalization, reduced cognitive load ….) …… However …… there is no guarantee that these mechanisms occur in any collaborative interactions. On the other hand, they do not occur only during collaboration. At some level of description – at least the neurone level- the mechanisms potentially involved in collaborative learning are the same as those potentially involved in individual cognition ( maybe KRO can argue against this?)

· take the method view ‘collaborative learning is not a method because of the low predictability of specific types of interactions’ ( KRO ? AI perspective)

‘In summary, the words ‘collaborative learning’ describe a situation in which particular forms of interaction among people are expected to occur, which would trigger learning mechanisms, but there is no guarantee that the expected interactions will actually occur. Hence a general concern is to develop ways to increase the probability that some types of interaction occur.’

These can be classified into 4 categories , 3 of which are addressed in the book.

Increasing the probability that interactions will occur

Set up the initial conditions.

P5 ‘ beyond a few main results, it appears that these conditions interact with each other in a complex way ( Dillenbourgh, Baker, Blaye & O’Malley, 1995) , the group heterogeneity effect will for instance be different for different tasks. Because of these multiple interactions, it is very difficult to set up initial conditions which guarantee the effectiveness of collaborative learning’ ( KRO but how do you specify effective?)

Over-specify the ‘collaboration’ contract with a scenario based on roles

P5 ‘ this approach turns collaborative learning into a method’

Scaffold productive interactions by encompassing interaction rules in the medium

Either by teacher or by technology e.g. using pre-defined buttons ‘do you agree?’ etc p6 ‘ However, the case study presented in chapter 3 shows that the interface constitutes a tool – semiotic and physical - that users have to appropriate and which affects their understanding of the task beyond simple facilitation/inhibition of particular types of interactions.

Monitor and regulate the interactions

Accomplished either by the

· Tutor role changes to one of facilitator ‘

· Technology providing minor pedagogical intervention’ widgets, analytics. Question in 1999 ‘ ‘whether peers are able to self-regulate their interaction with this type of feedback?’

3. what is referred to as collaboration’

the adjective collaboration concerns four aspects

· situation

· interaction

· learning mechanisms

· effects and the divergent views on how to measure it

situation

p7 ‘ intuitively a situation is termed ‘collaborative’ if peers are more or less at the same level, can perform the same actions, have a common goal and work together .’

· need to consider symmetry between learners, how much, how to manage it.

· raises questions about how to translate learning task into a shared goal. P8 ‘shared goals can only be partially set up at the outset of collaboration, they themselves have to be negotiated,…… goal discrepancies are often revealed through disagreements on action. . Through the negotiation of goals, agents not only develop shared goals, but they also become mutually aware of their shared goals. ‘

· also low division of labour ( cf cooperation when roles are shared out) is more likely to lead to more interaction and therefore more collaboration.

Interaction

· Operationalisation :P 8 where ‘ the degree of interactivity among peers is not defined by the frequency of the interactions but by the extent to which these interaction influence the peers’ cognitive processes. The degree of interweaving between reasoning and interaction is difficult to define operationally’

· Synchronicity: ‘doing something together implies synchronous communication while cooperation is often associated with asynchronous communication’ …….’ Is synchronicity less a technical parameter than a social rule. Is it a considerate meta-communicative contract?’ …. ‘if the medium breaks the conversational rules established for another medium, users create new ways of maintaining this subjective feeling of synchronicity of reasoning’

· Negotiation: collaborative interactions are negotiable e.g. negotiate how to act ( KRO possibly something I could measure?) ‘p10 ‘ the grounding process is the bottom layer of the negotiation process ( Dillenbourg & traum). This grounding +negotiation process , i.e. the way through which partners can build a shared solution, hence became a central concern in collaborative learning. Chapter 3 is an ambitious attempt to relate linguistic theory, developed by Clark and several colleagues, with the learning mechanism described by the cultural-historical psychology’.

‘The space for misunderstanding plays in grounding the same role as the space for negotiation in agreement. It constitutes an important element in modeling the dynamics of collaborative learning’ ‘ When two partners misunderstand, they have to build explanations, justify themselves, reformulate statements, and so on and all of these activities can lead to learning. Hence, in contrast with DAI and linguistic criteria, a collaborative learning situation should not eliminate ( if possible) the probability of misunderstanding ( in order to reduce the cost of communication) but instead leave the space for misunderstanding that is necessary for sustaining the subjects’ efforts to overcome miscommunication’

learning mechanisms

· work at the individual level of learning has identified: induction, cognitive load, self explanation, conflict ( Piaget). P11 Theses processes occur more often or more spontaneously in collaborative situations’

· Are there other learning processes that would be specific to social interactions? grounding and mutual modeling

Internalization ‘i.e. the transfer of tools from the social plane ( interaction with others) to the inner plane ( reasoning) Wertsch(1985) ( in a different context) claimed that an important step was ‘when the child becomes able to use the to-be-internalised concepts in conversation with his mother’ ‘Chapter 3 authors might rephrase Wersch’s findings by saying that the concept has been grounded’ another often quoted mechanism is appropriation ( Rogoff, 1990) by which an agent reinterprets his own action or utterance under the light of what his partner does or says next ( Fox, 1987)’ …. ‘An hypotheis mentioned in Chapter 7 is that mutual modeling implies some differential reasoning ( comparing what I do or know to what my partner does or knows) and that the perception of discrepncies with respect to one’s partner knowledge increases the awareness of one’s own knowledge’

Effects

P12 difficult to specify

Theories of collaborative learning

P13 ‘ At a first glance the situation generates interaction patterns, these interactions trigger cognitive mechanisms which in turn generate cognitive effects’

However such a linear causality is s simplification. Most relations are reciprocal. The elements just specified are all related to each other through bidirectional links.

Collaborative learning prospers when there is the necessity of continuous explanation to each other’

cf CF

So - Method for studying CMC, optional group findings

H.-J. So (2009)

When groups decide to use asynchronous online discussions: collaborative learning and social presence under a voluntary participation structure.

Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 25,2, 143-160

Interesting points: Uptake of CMC interplay of technical & pedagogical factors; participation & design.

Definitions CSCL( good one on meaning making), social presence ( as a perception? real? salience? community & therefore belonging?) collaboration ( less structured than collective)

Methodological instruments:

Collaborative – 5 categories, planning, contributing, seeking input, technology, social interaction) with sub codes eg challenging, explaining

Questionnaire on relevant ICT experience (?how does it compare with KROs)

Thematic analysis of interviews ( KRO whether appropriate)

Social presence – modification of Rourke

Findings :

3 themes pointing to complex picture ( see quote on this)

little advantage taken of challenging, explaining etc during collaboration i.e. low level of critical behaviour)

social presence indicator patterns depended on group ( different also to KRO with careers)

CMC uptake

P143 ‘ the phenomenon of wide adoption and utilization is explained by the interplay of technical and pedagogical factors. From technical perspectives the simplicity of usage of online discussion, easy access and compatibility with existing practices are important attributes ‘ Instructors can use them to extend discussion beyond the classroom’.

Aim

P144 ‘ a better understanding of the nature of participation and collaborative learning’ by looking at

RQs ( based on the proposition that different participation and motivation conditions may reveal different interactional and dialogic patterns)

• How do groups decide to use CMC tools in the first place? Used self-reported surveys and face-to-face interviews.
• Once a group decision is made, how do group members participate in asynchronous discussion forums to complete collaborative learning tasks? Content analysis

Levels of analysis

1. ‘Students’ experiences and perceptions of online discussion forums were collected, both in self-reported surveys and face-to-face interviews, to examine the reasons behind how groups arrive at making decisions with regard to using or not using CMC tools under the conditions whrein these students were taking blended learning-format course.’

2. ‘more closely examined how members in voluntary groups participated in online discussion forums to complete a group project requiring fairly complex data gathering and research processes. For this micro-level content analysis this research is particularly interested in two constructs collaborative learning and social presence.’

Topics & Definitions ( from literature review)

CSCL ‘ a field of study centrally concerned with meaning and the practices of meaning making in the context of joint activity, and the ways in which these practices are mediated through designed artefacts’ (Koschmann 2002, p.18).

Participation p145 ‘ is not a taken for granted fact’

Guzdial & Truns (2000) approached participation as s design challenge.

Hewitt (2005, p575) gradual death of a thread is affected by a ‘single pass strategy’ p145 ‘referiing to users’ habitual routine of paying attention to new postings and neglecting postings read or posted earlier’ – prevents progressive knowledge building. KRO – summaries? As a design feature, rise above it cf Jackie’s style.

Thompson & Savenye (2007) and others p145 ‘students tend to adopt an eclectic and efficient approach’

Socio-affective dimensions in asynchronous learning: collaboration and social presence.

Collaborative cf cooperative learning. Collaborative learning tends to be less structured and student led whilst cooperative is usually based on specialisation of task which is designed into the activity therefore less opportunity for mutual engagement.

P146 ‘ in the content analysis of collaborative online learning, they found that there were generally fewer codes for challenge and explanation interaction’

Social presence

• Short et al, 1976, p 65 ( social psychologists) ‘degree of salience of the other person in the interactions and the consequent salience of the interpersonal relationships’
• Gunawardena & Zittle (1997, p9) in the context of communication that is mediated by a computer ‘ the degree which a person is perceived as a ‘real person’
• Rourke et al, 1999 ,p50 ‘ the ability of learners to project themselves socially and affectively into a community of inquiry’ instrument for measuring 3 categories; affective, interactive, cohesive.
• Tu and McIssac (2002, p131 a learner centred definition ‘ a measure of the feeling of community that a learner experiences in an online environment’
• Authors view, partially based on the literature review. P147 ‘ social presence as a learner’s psychological perception of other learners as well as of media capabilities’ KRO what about learner real life context?

Method

Participants:

student worked on a collaborative project throughout the semester and various CMC tools were available to facilitate students’ online collaboration. 3-5 particpants per group, 12 groups therefore groups who did opt for CMc and those that did not.

Instruments :

RQ1 CMC Questionnaire (Tu and McIssac, 2002) descriptive information regarding level of profiency, experience with CMC tools (email, threaded discussion, real-time chat).

Hours using CMC tools

RQ2 Interview (9 (16%) randomly selected) Open ended questions eg ;how did you group members collaborate online to complete the group project’. Thematic analysis & also content analysis for the two voluntarily participating groups using two coding schemes. For collaborative behaviour Curtis & Lawson(2001) – 5 categories planning, contributing, seeking input, technology, social interaction. For social presence used Rourke, 3 categories affective, interactive, & cohesive. Nb these coding schemes were modified for the purpose of this study ( no details given as to why). Two coders , used Holsti’s intercoder reliability & Cohen’s Kappa.

Results

• RQ1 How do groups decide to use CMC tools in the first place? Used self-reported surveys and face-to-face interviews.

• No apparent relation between uptake & previous experience of CMC .

• 5/12 groups did not use the forums at all, postings varied from 1 – 128 in the other 7 groups.

• Themes ( 3 identified)

a. Prior/ initial experience of CMC

Successful prior or initial use of CMC , encouragement from members who have successful prior experience., voluntary use became the norm

Unsuccessful prior or intial use led to using other forms of communication ie email, face to face, phone. And these methods became the norm. note comment about feeling that other participants might be multitasking in online chat and therefore not applying full attention.

b. Perceived affordances

voluntary uptake – convenience of any time, any place, & access to archives

no uptake – delayed feedback & lack of immediate interaction for the more complex communications. (KRO ? where the emotional dimension may come in)

c. Interplay between the nature of the collaborative tasks and the perceived efficiency

students felt they could achieve more and quicker face to face when possible conflicts or miscommunications amongst group members were minimized. P152 quote in the first column , that tended to politeness more online therefore if disagreement preferred to meet face to face.

P152 ‘ complex picture. Data showed that the decisions involved the interplay among the nature of collaborative tasks, group dynamics and perceived affordances of CMC technology and efficiency , rather than individual characteristics such as proficiency levels and prior experience with communication tools.’

• RQ2 Once a group decision is made, how do group members participate in asynchronous discussion forums to complete collaborative learning tasks? Content analysis

Based on the 2/12 groups who decided to use online discussion forums to complete their group projects’

Participation patterns by individual group members

The individuals who posted the highest number of messages seemed to act as group leaders who tended to assign other members to work on set tasks and also by providing frequent feedback to other postings.

One other participant remained confused by her role.

Sustained discussion by groups across time

Similar proportions for each of the categories ( planning, contributing, seeking input, technology, social interaction) across both groups. ( KRO similarity to the Careers paper)

High frequencies of planning activities ( e.g. arranging meetings) etc. Low frequencies of challenging(CH code), explaining elaborating(EX) while advocating effort (EF) was not identified in the transcripts of either group. see fig 1 p 154. High instances of reporting what one had done.

Social presence - Similar patterns across both groups with cohesive responses being the highest 57.5 & 63.8% , (which does not match the findings from the careers conference).

Collaboration and social presence patterns over time ( using the 3 stages planning, production & completion as the anchor points)

P155 ‘ Group A showed a decrease in interactive and cohesive behaviours over time while the affective factor increased slightly. On the other hand, all the social presence factors in Group B increased as studebts in that group worked on the collaborative project’

Conclusions

• RQ1 How do groups decide to use CMC tools in the first place? Used self-reported surveys and face-to-face interviews.

P157 ‘ the decision process is rather complex, involving the interplay of several factors, including the nature of the collaborative tasks, the perceived affordances of CMC tools and the perceived efficiency of communication methods. First and previous impressions also played a part’

• RQ2 Once a group decision is made, how do group members participate in asynchronous discussion forums to complete collaborative learning tasks? Content analysis

Lack of challenging and self-disclosing behaviours. P158 quotes other research that report low levels of critical behaviour patterns online. Also that high level cogniotive skills are rarely shown unless structured interventions are applied’

Frequency of social presence can eith increase or decereas over time, this fits with other research reports.